Sir Robert Anderson
(1841-1918)
PREFACE TO THE TENTH EDITION
THE COMING PRINCE has been out of print for more than a year; for it seemed inadvisable to reissue it during the War. But the War has apparently created an increased interest in the prophecies of Daniel; and as this book is therefore in demand, it has been decided to publish a new edition without further delay. Not that these pages contain any sensational "Armageddon" theories. For "a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon" is situated neither in France nor in Flanders, but in Palestine; and the future of the land and people of the covenant will be a main issue in the great battle which is yet to be fought on that historic plain.
Prophetic students are apt to become adherents of one or other of two rival schools of interpretation. The teaching of the "futurists" suggests that this Christian dispensation is altogether a blank in the Divine scheme of prophecy. And the "historicists" discredit Scripture by frittering away the meaning of plain words in order to find the fulfillment of them in history. Avoiding the errors of both these schools, this volume is written in the spirit of Lord Bacon's dictum, that "Divine prophecies have springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages, though the height or fullness of them may belong to some one age." And this world war is no doubt within the scope of prophecy, though it be not the fulfillment of any special Scripture.
Very many years ago my attention was directed to a volume of sermons by a devout Jewish Rabbi of the London Synagogue, in which he sought to discredit the Christian interpretation of certain Messianic prophecies. And in dealing with Daniel 9., he accused Christian expositors of tampering, not only with chronology, but with Scripture, in their efforts to apply the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks to the Nazarene. My indignation at such a charge gave place to distress when the course of study to which it led me brought proof that it was by no means a baseless libel. My faith in the Book of Daniel, already disturbed by the German infidel crusade of "the Higher Criticism," was thus further undermined. And I decided to take up the study of the subject with a fixed determination to accept without reserve not only the language of Scripture, but the standard dates of history as settled by our best modern chronologists. [1]
The following is a brief summary of the results of my
inquiry as regards the
great prophecy of the "Seventy Weeks." I began with the assumption,
based
on the perusal of many standard works, that the era in question had
reference to
the seventy years of the Captivity of Judah, and that it was to end
with the Coming
of Messiah. But I soon made the startling discovery that this was quite
erroneous.
For the Captivity lasted only sixty-two years; and the seventy weeks
related to the
wholly different judgment of the Desolations of Jerusalem. And further,
the period
"unto Messiah the Prince," as Daniel 9:25 so plainly states, was not
seventy
weeks, but 7+62 weeks.
The failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the
Servitude, the Captivity
and the Desolations, is a fruitful source of error in the study of
Daniel and the
historical books of Scripture. And it is strange that the distinction
should be ignored
not only by the Critics, but by Christians. Because of national sin,
Judah was brought
under servitude to Babylon for seventy years, this was in the third
year of King
Jehoiakim (B.C. 606). But the people continued obdurate; and in B.C.
598 the far
severer judgment of the Captivity fell on them. On the former capture
of Jerusalem,
Nebuchadnezzar left the city and people undisturbed, his only prisoners
being Daniel
and other cadets of the royal house. But on this second occasion he
deported the
mass of the inhabitants to Chaldea. The Jews still remained impenitent,
however,
in spite of Divine warnings by the mouth of Jeremiah in Jerusalem and
Ezekiel among
the exiles; and after the lapse of another nine years, God brought upon
them the
terrible judgment of "The Desolations," which was decreed to last for
seventy
years. Accordingly in B.C. 589, the Babylonian armies again invaded
Judea, and the
city was devastated and burned.
Now both the "Servitude" and the "Captivity," ended with the
decree of Cyrus in B.C. 536, permitting the return of the exiles. But
as the language
of Daniel 9:2 so plainly states, it was the seventy years of "The
Desolations"
that were the basis of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. And the epoch
of that seventy
years was the day on which Jerusalem was invested – the tenth
Tebeth in the ninth
year of Zedekiah – a day that has ever since been observed as
a fast by the Jews
in every land. (2 Kings 25:1.) Daniel and Revelation definitely
indicate that the
prophetic year is one of 360 days. Such moreover was the sacred year of
the Jewish
calendar; and, as is well known, such was the ancient year of Eastern
nations. Now
seventy years of 360 days contains exactly 25, 200 days; and as the
Jewish New Year's
day depended on the equinoctial moon, we can assign the 13th December
as "the
Julian date" of tenth Tebeth 589. And 25, 200 days measured from that
date ended
on the 17th December 520, which was the twenty-fourth day of the ninth
month in the
second year of Darius of Persia – -the very day on which the
foundation of the second
Temple was laid. (Haggai 2:18, 19.)
Here is something to set both critics and Christians thinking. A decree
of a Persian
king was deemed to be divine, and any attempt to thwart it was usually
met by prompt
and drastic punishment; and yet the decree directing the rebuilding of
the Temple,
issued by King Cyrus in the zenith of his power, was thwarted for
seventeen years
by petty local governors. How was this? The explanation is that until
the very last
day of the seventy years of "the Desolations" had expired, God would
not
permit one stone to be laid upon another on Mount Moriah.
Dismissing from our minds, therefore, all mere theories on
this subject, we
arrive at the following definitely ascertained facts:
And here again we must keep to Scripture. Though God has
nowhere recorded the
Bethlehem birth-date of Christ, no date in history, sacred or profane,
is fixed with
greater definiteness than that of the year in which the Lord began His
public ministry.
I refer of course to Luke 3:1, 2. I say this emphatically, because
Christian expositors
have persistently sought to set up a fictitious date for the reign of
Tiberias. The
first Passover of the Lord's ministry, therefore, was in Nisan A.D. 29;
and we can
fix the date of the Passion with absolute certainty as Nisan A.D. 32.
If Jewish or
infidel writers set themselves to confuse and corrupt the chronology of
these periods,
we would not be surprised. But it is to Christian expositors that we
owe this evil
work. Happily, however, we can appeal to the labors of secular
historians and chronologists
for proofs of the divine accuracy of Holy Scripture.
The general attack upon the Book of Daniel, briefly discussed in the
"Preface
to the Fifth Edition," is dealt with more fully in the 1902 reissue of Daniel
in the Critics' Den. The reader will there find an answer to
the attack of the
Higher Criticism on Daniel based on philology and history; and he will
find also
that the Critics are refuted by their own admissions respecting the
Canon of the
Old Testament.
Most of the "historical errors" in Daniel, which Professor Driver
copied
from Bertholdt's work of a century ago, have been disposed of by the
erudition and
research of our own day. But, when writing on the subject, I recognized
that the
identity of Darius the Mede was still a difficulty. Since then,
however, I have found
a solution of that difficulty in a verse in Ezra, hitherto used only by
Voltaire
and others to discredit Scripture. Ezra 5 tells us that in the reign of
Darius Hystaspis
the Jews petitioned the throne, appealing to the decree by which Cyrus
had authorized
the rebuilding of the Temple. The wording of the petition clearly
indicates that,
to the knowledge of the Jewish leaders, that decree had been filed in
the house of
the archives in Babylon. But the search there made for it proved
fruitless, and it
was ultimately found at Ecbatana (or Achmetha: Ezra 6:2). How then
could such a State
paper have been transferred to the Median capital?
The only reasonable explanation of this extraordinary fact completes
the circle of
proof that the vassal king whom Daniel calls Darius the Mede was
Gobryas (or Gubaru),
who led the army of Cyrus to Babylon. As various writers have noticed,
the testimony
of the inscriptions points to that conclusion. For example, the
Annalistic tablet
of Cyrus records that, after the taking of the city, it was Gobryas who
appointed
the governors or prefects; which appointments Daniel states were made
by Darius.
The fact that he was a prince of the royal house of Media, and
presumably well known
to Cyrus, who had resided at the Median Court, would account for his
being held in
such high honor. He it was who governed Media as Viceroy when that
country was reduced
to the status of a province; and to any one accustomed to deal with
evidence, the
inference will seem natural that, for some reason or other, he was sent
back to his
provincial throne, and that, in returning to Ecbatana he carried with
him the archives
of his brief reign in Babylon. In the interval between the accession of
Cyrus and
that of Darius Hystaspis, the Temple decree may well have been
forgotten by all but
the Jews themselves. And although it was a serious matter to thwart the
execution
of an order issued by the king of Persia (Ezra 6:11), yet in this
instance, as already
noticed, a Divine decree overruled the decree of Cyrus, and vetoed
their taking action
upon it.
The elucidation of the vision of the Seventy Weeks, as unfolded in the
following
pages, is my personal contribution to the Daniel controversy. And as
the searching
criticism to which it has been subjected has failed to detect in it an
error or a
flaw, [2] it may now be accepted
without hesitation or reserve. The only disparaging comment which
Professor Driver
could offer upon it in his Book of Daniel was that
it is a revival in a slightly
modified form" of the scheme of Julius Africanus, and that it leaves
the seventieth
week "unexplained." But surely the fact that my scheme is on the same
lines
as that of "the father of Christian Chronologists" creates a very
strong
presumption in its favor. And so far from leaving the seventieth week
unexplained,
I have dealt with it in accordance with the beliefs of the early
Fathers. For they
regarded that week as future, seeing that they looked for the
Antichrist of Scripture–
"an individual person, the incarnation and concentration of sin." [3]
– R. A.
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
A DEFENSE OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL AGAINST THE "HIGHER CRITICISM."
This volume has been disparaged in some quarters because,
it is alleged, it
ignores the destructive criticism which is supposed to have led "all
people
of discernment" to abandon belief in the visions of Daniel.
The charge is not altogether just. Not only are some of the chief
objections of the
critics answered in these pages, but in proving the genuineness of the
great central
prophecy of the book, the authenticity of the whole is established, And
the absence
of a special chapter upon the subject may be explained. The practice,
too common
in religious controversy, of giving an ex parte representation
of the views
of opponents, instead of accepting their own statement of them, is
never satisfactory,
and seldom fair. And no treatise was available on the critics' side,
concise enough
to afford the basis of a brief excursus, and yet sufficiently full and
authoritative
to warrant its being accepted as adequate.
This want, however, has since been supplied by Professor Driver's Introduction
to the Literature of the Old Testament, [1]
a work which embodies the results of the so-called "Higher
Criticism,"
as accepted by the sober judgment of the author. While avoiding the
malignant extravagance
of the German rationalists and their English imitators, he omits
nothing which erudition
can with fairness urge against the authenticity of the Book of Daniel.
And if the
hostile arguments he adduces can be shown to be faulty and
inconclusive, the reader
may fearlessly accept the result as an "end of controversy" upon the
subject.
[2]
Here is the thesis which the author sets himself to
establish:
"In face of the facts presented by the Book of Daniel, the opinion that
it is
the work of Daniel himself cannot be sustained. Internal evidence
shows, with a cogency
that cannot be resisted, that it must have been written not earlier
than c. 300 B.C.,
and in Palestine; and it is at least probable that it was composed
under the persecution
of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 168 or 167."
Professor Driver marshals his proofs under three heads:
(1) facts of a historical nature;
(2) the evidence of the language of Daniel; and
(3) the theology of the Book.
Under (1) he enumerates the following points:
I dismiss (f) and (h) at once, for the author himself, with
his usual fairness,
declines to press them. "They should," he admits, "be used with
reserve."
The mention of "Darius the Mede" is perhaps the greatest difficulty
which
confronts the student of Daniel, and the problem it involves still
awaits solution.
The unqualified rejection of the narrative by many eminent writers only
proves the
incapacity even of scholars of repute to suspend their judgment upon
questions of
the kind. The history of that age is too uncertain and confused to
justify dogmatism,
and, as Professor Driver justly remarks, "a cautious criticism will not
build
too much on the silence of the inscriptions, where many certainly
remain to be brought
to light". In Mr. Sayce's recent work [3]
this caution is neglected. He accepts, moreover, with a
faith which is unduly
simple, all that Cyrus says about himself. It was obviously his
interest to represent
the acquisition of Babylonia as a peaceful revolution, and not a
military conquest.
But the Book of Daniel does not conflict with either hypothesis. Mr.
Sayce here "reads
into it," as is so constantly done, what it in no way states or even
implies.
There is not a word about a siege or a capture. Belshazzar was "slain,"
and Darius "received" the kingdom; but how these events came about we
must
learn from other sources. Professor Driver here admits in express terms
"that
'Darius the Mede' may prove, after all, to have been a historical
character";
[4] and this is enough for
our present purpose.
The remaining points I proceed to discuss seriatim.
(a) This is rightly
placed first, as being the most
important. But its apparent importance grows less and less the more
closely it is
examined. Our English Bible, following the Vulgate, divides the Old
Testament into
thirty-nine books. The Jewish Canon reckoned only twenty-four. These
were classified
under three heads – the Torah, the Neveeim,
and the Kethuvim (the
Law, the Prophets, and the Other Writings). The first contained the
Pentateuch. The
second contained eight books, which were again classified in two
groups. The first
four – viz., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings –
were called the "Former Prophets";
and the second four – viz., Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
"the Twelve"
(i.e. the minor prophets reckoned as one book)
– were called the "Latter
Prophets." The third division contained eleven books – viz.,
Psalms, Proverbs,
Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel,
Ezra and Nehemiah
(reckoned as one), and Chronicles. Now, an examination of this list
makes either
of two conclusions irresistible. Either the Canon was arranged under
Divine guidance,
or else the classification of the books between the second and third
divisions was
an arbitrary one. If any one adopts the former alternative, the
inclusion of Daniel
in the Canon is decisive of the whole question. If, on the other hand,
it be assumed
that the arrangement was human and arbitrary, the fact that Daniel is
in the third
group proves – not that the book was regarded as of doubtful
repute, for in that
case it would have been excluded from the Canon, but that the great
exile of the
Captivity was not regarded as a "prophet."
To the superficial this may seem to be giving up the whole case. But
using the word
"prophet" in its ordinary acceptation, Daniel has no claim whatever to
the title, and but for Matthew 24:15 it would probably never have been
applied to
him. His visions have their New Testament counterpart, but yet no one
speaks of "the
prophet John." According to 2 Peter 1:21 the prophets "spake as they
were
moved by the Holy Ghost." This characterized the utterances of Isaiah,
Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and "the Twelve." They were the words of Jehovah by the mouth
of the men who uttered them. The prophets stood apart from the people
as witnesses
for God; but Daniel's position and ministry were wholly different.
"Neither
have we hearkened unto Thy servants the prophets which spake in Thy
name": such
was his humble attitude. Higher criticism may slight the distinction
here insisted
on; but the question is how it was regarded by the men who settled the
Canon; and
in their judgment its importance was immense. Daniel contains the
record, not of
God-breathed words uttered by the seer, but of the
words spoken to him,
and of dreams and visions accorded him. And the visions of the latter
half of his
book were granted him after more than sixty years spent in statecraft
– years the
record of which would fix his fame in the popular mind as statesman and
ruler.
The reader will thus recognize that the position of Daniel in the Canon
is precisely
where we should expect to find it. The critic speaks of it as being "in
the
miscellaneous collection of writings called the Hagiographa,
and among the
latest of these, in proximity to Esther." But, in adopting this from
earlier
writers, the author is guilty of what may be described as unintentional
dishonesty.
Daniel comes before Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles in a group of books
which includes
the Psalms – those Psalms than which no part of their Canon
was prized more highly
by the Jews – those Psalms, many of which they rightly
regarded as prophetic in the
highest and strictest sense. [5]
But Daniel, we are told, was placed "in proximity to
Esther." What
does the critic mean by this? He cannot wish to suggest that Esther is
held in low
repute by the Jews, for he himself declares that it came to be "ranked
by them
as superior both to the writings of the prophets and to all other parts
of the Hagiographa."
As to Esther coming before Daniel, he cannot have
overlooked that it is bracketed
in the Canon with the four books which precede it – the Megilloth.
He cannot
mean to imply that the books of the Kethuvim are arranged
chronologically;
and he certainly cannot wish to create an ignorant prejudice. The
statement therefore
is an enigma, and the discussion under this head may be dosed by the
general remark
that (a) implies that
the Jews esteemed the books in
the third division of their Canon as less sacred than "the prophets."
But
this is wholly baseless. In common with the rest, they were, as
Josephus tells us,
"justly believed to be Divine, so that, rather than speak against them,
they
were ready to suffer torture, or even death." [6]
(b) But little need be
said in answer to this. Canon
Driver admits that the argument is one "which, standing alone, it would
be hazardous
to press," and this is precisely its position if (a) be refuted. If it
were
a question of the omission of Daniel's name from a formal list of the
prophets everything
above urged would apply here with equal force; but the reader must not
suppose that
the son of Sirach gives any list of the kind. The facts are these. The
Apocryphal
Book of Ecclesiasticus, which is here referred to, ends with a rhapsody
in praise
of "famous men." This panegyric, it is true, omits the name of Daniel.
But in what connection would his name be included? Daniel was exiled to
Babylon in
early youth, and never spent a single day of his long life among his
people, never
was openly associated with them in their struggles or their sorrows.
The critic,
moreover, fails to notice that the Son of Sirach ignores also not only
such worthies
as Abel, and Melchisedec, and Job, and Gideon, and Samson, but also
Ezra, who, unlike
Daniel, played a most prominent part in the national life, and who also
gave his
name to one of the books of the Canon. Let the reader decide this
matter for himself
after reading the passage in which the names of Daniel and Ezra ought
to appear.
[7] If any one is so mentally
constituted that the omission leads him to decide against the
authenticity of these
two books, no words of mine would influence him.
(c) The historical
statement with which the Book of
Daniel opens is declared to be improbable on two grounds: first,
because "the
Book of Kings is silent" on the subject; and, secondly, because
Jeremiah 25
appears inconsistent with it. The first point is made apparently in
error, for 2
Kings 24:1 states explicitly that in Jehoiakim's days Nebuchadnezzar
came up against
Jerusalem, and that the Jewish king became his vassal. [8]
And the second point is overstated. Jeremiah 25 is silent
on the subject,
and that is all that can be said. Now the weight to be given to the
silence of a
particular witness or document on any matter is a familiar problem in
dealing with
evidence. It entirely depends on circumstances whether it counts for
much, or little,
or nothing. Kings being a historical record, its silence here would
count for something.
But why should a warning and a prophecy like Jeremiah 25 contain the
recital of an
event of a few months before, an event which no one in Jerusalem could
ever possibly
forget? [9]
But further discussion on these lines is needless, for the accuracy of
Daniel's statement
can be established on grounds which the critic ignores altogether. I
refer to the
chronology of the eras of the "servitude" and the "desolations."
Both are commonly confounded with the "captivity," which was only in
part
concurrent with them. These several eras represented three successive
judgments upon
Judah. The chronology of these is fully explained in the sequel, and a
reference
to the excursus (within this work), or indeed a glance at the tables
which follow,
will supply proof absolute and complete that the servitude began in the
third year
of Jehoiakim, precisely as the Book of Daniel avers.
(d) I will refer under the second
head of the inquiry to the
philological question here involved. It is not in any sense a historical
difficulty.
(e) The reader will find this point dealt with. Canon
Driver remarks: "It
may be admitted as probable that Belsharuzur held command for his
father in Babylon;
…but it is difficult to think that this could entitle him to
be spoken of by a contemporary
as king." If Belshazzar was regent, as the narrative
indicates, it is difficult
to think that a courtier would speak of him otherwise than as king. To
have done
so might have cost him his head! Daniel 5:7, 16, 29 affords
corroboration here in
a manner all the more striking because it is wholly undesigned.
Nebuchadnezzar had
made Daniel second ruler in the kingdom: why does Belshazzar make him third
ruler?
Presumably because he himself held but the second place. To avoid this
the critics,
trading upon a possible alternative rendering of the Aramaic {as given
in the margin
of the Revised Version}, conjecture a "Board of three." But assuming
that
the words used may mean a triumvirate in the sense
of chap. 6:2, the question
whether this is their actual meaning must be settled by an appeal to
history. And
history affords not the slightest hint that such a system of government
prevailed
in the Babylonian Empire. A true exegesis, therefore, must decide in
favor of the
alternative and more natural view, that Daniel was to rule as third,
the absent king
being first, and the king-regent second.
But Belshazzar is called the son of
Nebuchadnezzar. The reader will find this
objection fully answered by Dr. Pusey (Daniel, pp.
406-408). He justly remarks
that "intermarriage with the family of a conquered monarch, or with a
displaced
line, is so obviously a way of strengthening the newly acquired throne,
that it is
a priori probable that Nabunahit would so fortify
his claim," and Professor
Driver himself allows (p. 468) that possibly the
King may have married a daughter
of Nebuchadnezzar, "in which case the latter might be spoken of as
Belshazzar's
father (= grandfather, by Hebrew usage)." I will only add two remarks:
first,
the critics forget that even on their own view of Daniel the existence
of a tradition
is prima facie proof of its truth; and, secondly,
if the usurper chose to
be called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, though with no sort of claim to
the title, no
one in Babylon would dare to thwart him.
(g) Here are the words
of Daniel 9:2 (R.V.): "I
Daniel understood by the books the number of the years, whereof the
word of the Lord
came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishing of the desolations
of Jerusalem,
even seventy years." The prophecy here referred to is admittedly
Jeremiah 25:11,
12. Now the word sepher, rendered "book" in Daniel
9:2, means simply
a scroll. It may denote a book, as it often does in
Scripture, or merely a
letter. See ex. gr. Jeremiah
29:1 (the letter which Jeremiah
wrote to the exiles in Babylon), or Isaiah 37:14 (Sennacherib's letter
to
King Hezekiah). Then, again, Jeremiah 36:1, 2 records that in the
fourth year of
Jehoiakim, the very year in which the prophecy of Jeremiah 25: was
given, all the
prophecies delivered up to that time were recorded in "a book." And in
Jeremiah 51:60, 61 we find that some ten years later a further "book"
was
written and sent to Babylon. Where, then, is the difficulty? Professor
Driver, moreover,
himself supplies a complete answer in his own criticism by adopting
"the supposition
that in some cases Jeremiah's writings were in circulation for a while
as single
prophecies, or small groups of prophecies" These may have been the
scrolls or
"books" of Daniel 9.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, we admit that "the books" must
mean
the sacred writings up to that period, what warrant is there for
affirming that no
such "collection" existed in 536 B.C.? A more arbitrary assertion was
never
made, even in the range of controversy. Is it not absolutely incredible
that the
scrolls of the Law were not kept together? And considering Daniel's
intense piety,
and the extraordinary resources and means he must have had at his
disposal under
Nebuchadnezzar, may it not "safely be affirmed" that there was not
another
man upon earth so likely as himself to have had copies of all the holy
writings?
[10]
I now turn to the critic's second argument, which is based on the language
of
the Book of Daniel. He appeals, first, to the number of Persian
words it contains;
secondly, to the presence of Greek words; thirdly,
to the character of the
Aramaic in which part of the book is written; and,
lastly, to the character
of the Hebrew.
Underlying the argument founded on the presence of foreign words is the
unexpressed
assumption that the Jews were an uncultured tribe who had lived till
then in boorish
isolation. And yet four centuries before Daniel's time the wisdom and
wealth of Solomon
were spoken of throughout the then known world. He was a naturalist, a
botanist,
a philosopher, and a poet. And why not a linguist also? Were all his
communications
with his many foreign wives carried on through interpreters? He traded
with near
and distant nations, and every one knows how language is influenced by
commerce.
And can we doubt that the fame of Nebuchadnezzar attracted foreigners
to Babylon?
What his relations were with foreign courts we know not. Why may not
Daniel have
been a Persian scholar? The position assigned to him under the Persian
rule renders
this extremely probable. The number of Persian words in the book,
according to Professor
Driver, is "probably at least fifteen"; and here is his comment upon
them:
But it was precisely in these circumstances that the Book of
Daniel was written.
The vision of chap. 10 was given five years after the Persian rule had
been established,
and these visions were the basis of the book. Notes and records the
writer doubtless
had of the earlier and historical portions of it; but it is a
reasonable assumption
that the whole was written after the visions were accorded him.
As regards the Aramaic and the Hebrew of Daniel, I can of course
express no opinion
of my own. But my position will be in no way prejudiced by my
incompetency in this
respect. In the first place, there is nothing new here. The critic
merely gives in
a condensed form what the Germans have urged; and the whole ground has
been covered
by Dr. Pusey and others, who, having examined it with equal erudition
and care, have
arrived at wholly different conclusions. But, in the second place, it
is unnecessary;
for the signal fairness with which Professor Driver states the results
of his argument
enables me to concede all he says in this regard and to dismiss the
discussion of
it to the sequel. Here axe his words:
May I restate this in other words? The Persian terms raise a
presumption that
Daniel was written after a certain date. The Hebrew strengthens this
presumption,
the Aramaic is consistent with it, and the Greek words used establish
the truth of
it. Problems precisely similar to this claim decision every day in our
courts of
justice. The whole strength of the case depends on the last point
stated. Any number
of argumentative presumptions may be rebutted; but here, it is alleged,
we have proof
which. admits of no answer: the Greek words demand a
date which destroys the
authenticity of Daniel.
Will the reader believe it that the only foundation on which this
superstructure
rests is the allegation that two Greek words are
found in the list of musical,
instruments given in the third chapter? At a, bazaar held some time ago
in one of
our cathedral, towns, under the patronage of the bishop of the:
diocese, the alarm
was given that a thief was at work: among the company, and two ladies
present 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! Perhaps an apology is due for
this digression;
but, in sober earnestness, surely the inquiry is opportune whether
these critics
understand the very rudiments of the science of weighing evidence. The
presence of
the two stolen purses did not "demand" the conviction of the bishop.
Neither
should the presence of two Greek words decide the fate of Daniel. [11] The question would still
remain, How did they come to be
there? According to Professor Sayce, himself a hostile authority, the
evidence of
the monuments has entirely refuted this argument of the critics [12] It now appears that there
were Greek colonies in Palestine
as early as the days of Hezekiah, and that there was intercourse
between Greece and
Canaan at a still earlier period.
But let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the words are really
Greek, and
that no such words were known in Babylon in the days of the exile. Is
the inference
based on their presence in the book a legitimate one? While some
apologists of Daniel
have pressed unduly the hypothesis of a revision, such a hypothesis
affords a most
reasonable explanation of difficulties of this particular kind. Why
should we doubt
the truth of the Jewish tradition that "the men of the great synagogue
wrote"
(that is, edited) the Book of Daniel? And if true,
these Greek words may be
easily accounted for. If in the list of musical instruments, and in the
title of
the "wise men," the editors found terms which were foreign and strange
to them, how natural for them to substitute words which would be
familiar to the
Jews of Palestine. [13]
How natural, too, to spell such names as Nebuchadnezzar
and Abednego in the
manner then become usual. These are precisely the sort of changes which
they would
adopt; changes of no vital moment, but fitted to make the book more
suitable for
those on whose behalf they were revising it.
The critic's last ground of attack is the theology of the Book of
Daniel. This, he
declares, "points to a later age than that of the exile." No charge of
error is suggested, for Professor Driver is careful
at the outset to repudiate
what he calls the" exaggerations" of the German rationalists and their
English imitators. But his alliance with such men warps his judgment,
and betrays
him into adopting statements begotten of their mingled ignorance and
malice. Let
one instance suffice. "It is remarkable also," he says, "that Daniel
– so unlike the prophets generally – should display
no interest in the welfare or
prospects of his contemporaries." Not even in theological controversy
could
another statement be found more flagrantly baseless and false. In the
entire history
of the prophets, in the whole range of Scripture, the ninth chapter of
Daniel has
no parallel for touching, earnest, passionate "interest in the welfare
and prospects"
of contemporaries.
Now the question here is, not whether the doctrine of the Book be true,
for that
is not disputed, but whether truth of such an advanced and definite
character could
have been revealed at so early a period in the scheme of revelation. It
is not easy
to fix the principles on which such a question should be discussed. And
the discussion
may be avoided by raising another question, the answer to which will
decide the whole
matter in dispute. We know the "orthodox view" of the Book of Daniel.
What
alternative does the critic propose for our acceptance? Here he shall
speak for himself,
and the two quotations following will suffice:
The first of these quotations refers to Daniel himself, the
second to the supposed
author of the Book which bears his name. In the first we pass for a
moment out of
the mist and cloud of mere theory and argument into the plain, clear
light of fact.
"It cannot be doubted," or, in other words it is absolutely certain,
that
Daniel was not only "a historical person," but "a seer"– that
is to say, a prophet. But plunging back again at
once into the gloom, we go
on to conjecture the existence of another prophet in the days of
Antiochus – a real
prophet, for "he utters genuine predictions" for the
encouragement
of "the godly Jews in the season of their trial."
Now the position of the skeptic is in a sense
unassailable. He is like the
obstinate juror who puts his back against the wall and refuses to
believe the evidence.
But mark what this suggested compromise involves. As already noticed,
Daniel had
no pretensions to the prophet's mantle in the sense in which Jeremiah
and Ezekiel
wore it. He himself laid no claim to it (see chap. 9:10). He, moreover,
passed his
life in the splendid isolation of the Court of Babylon, while they were
central figures
among their people – one in the midst of the troubles in
Jerusalem, the other among
the exiles. It would not be strange therefore if Daniel's name and fame
had no such
place as theirs in the popular memory. But here we are asked to believe
that another
prophet, raised up within historic times, whose "message of
encouragement"
must have been on every man's lips throughout the noble Maccabean
struggle, passed
clean out of the memory of the nation. The historian of this struggle
cannot have
been removed from him by more than a single generation, yet he ignores
his existence,
though he refers in the plainest terms to the Daniel of the Captivity. [14] The prophet's voice had been
silent for centuries; with what
wild and passionate enthusiasm the nation would have hailed the rise of
a new seer
at such a time! And when the issue of that fierce struggle set the seal
of truth
upon his words, his fame would have eclipsed that of the old prophets
of earlier
days. But in fact not a vestige of his fame or name survived. No
writer, sacred or
secular, seems to have heard of him. No tradition of him remained. Was
there ever
a figment more untenable than this?
No such compromise between faith and unbelief is; possible. From either
of two alternatives
there is no escape. Either the Book of Daniel is what it claims. to be,
or else it
is wholly worthless. "All must be true or all imposture." It is idle to
talk of it as; being the work of some prophet of a later epoch. It
dates from Babylon
in the days of the Exile, or else it is a literary fraud, concocted
after the time
of Antiochus Epiphanes. But how then could it come to be quoted in the
Maccabees
– quoted, not incidentally, but in one of the most solemn and
striking passages in
the entire book, the dying words of old Mattathias? And how could it
come to be included
in the Canon? The critics make much of its position in
the Canon: how do they
account for its having a place in it at all?
It is reasonably certain that the first two divisions of the Canon were
settled by
the Great Synagogue long before the days of the Maccabees, and that its
completion
was the work of the Great Sanhedrin, not later than the second century
B.C. And we
are asked to suppose that this great College, composed of the most
learned men of
the nation, would have accepted a literary fraud of modern date, or
could have been
duped by it. This is one of the wildest and most reckless hypotheses
imaginable.
Nor would this argument be sensibly weakened if the critics should
insist that the
Canon may still have been open for a hundred years after the death of
Antiochus.
[15] If it was thus kept
open, the fact would be a further pledge and proof that the most
jealous and vigilant
care must have been unceasingly exercised. The presence of the Book of
Daniel in
the Jewish Canon is a fact more weighty than all the criticisms of the
critics.
Thousands there are who cling to the Book of Daniel, and yet dread to
face this destructive
criticism lest faith should give way under the influence. And yet this
is all it
has to urge, as formulated by one of its best exponents. Of all these
hostile arguments
there is not so much as one which may not be refuted at any moment by
the discovery
of further inscriptions. In presence of some newly found cylinder from
the as yet
unexplored ruins of Babylon, [16]
all this theorizing about improbabilities and peddling
over words might be
silenced in a day. And this being so, it is obvious to any one in whom
the judicial
faculty is not wanting that the critics exaggerate the importance of
their criticisms.
Even if all they urge were true and weighty, it should lead us only to
suspend our
judgment. But the critics are specialists, and it is proverbial that
specialists
are bad judges. And here it is possible for one who cannot pose as a
theologian or
a scholar to meet them on more than equal terms. With them it is enough
that evidence
of a certain kind points in one direction. But they in whom the
judicial faculty
is developed will pause and ask, "What is to be said upon the other
side?"
and "Will the proposed decision harmonize with all the facts?"
Questions
of this kind, however, have no existence for the critics. If they ever
presented
themselves to Professor Driver's mind, it is to be regretted that he
failed to take
account of them when stating the general results of his inquiry. And if
ignored by
an author so willing to reach the truth, they need not be looked for in
the writings
of the skeptics and apostates.
I have hitherto been dealing with presumptions and inferences and
arguments. To deny
that these have weight would be both dishonest and futile. It may be
conceded that
if the Book of Daniel had been brought to light within the Christian
era, they would
suffice to bar its admission to the Canon. But to the Christian the
Book is accredited
by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and in presence of this one fact the
force of these
criticisms is dispelled like mist before the sun. The very prediction
which the rationalists
most cavil at, He has adopted in that discourse which is the key to all
unfulfilled
prophecy (Matthew 24); and if Daniel be proved a fraud, He whom we own
as Lord is
discredited thereby.
Such an argument as this the rationalists of the German school despise.
And with
them the mention of Daniel in the Book of Ezekiel counts for nothing,
though according
to their own canons it ought to outweigh much of the negative evidence
they adduce.
Daniel is not mentioned by other prophets; therefore, they argue,
Daniel is a myth.
Three times the prophecies of Ezekiel speak of him; therefore, they
infer, some other
Daniel is intended. Their argument is based on the silence of the
sacred and other
books of the Jews. A man so eminent as the Daniel of the exile would
not, they urge,
have been thus ignored. And yet they conjecture the career of another
Daniel of equal,
or even greater eminence, whose very existence has been forgotten! It
is not easy
to deal with such casuists. But there is one argument, at least, which
they cannot
rob us of.
They have got rid of the second chapter and the seventh, and the
closing vision of
the Book, but the great central prophecy of the Seventy Weeks remains;
and this affords
proof of the Divine authority of Daniel, which cannot be destroyed. Let
them fix
the date of the Book where they will, they fail to account for this.
From one definitely
recorded historical event – the edict to rebuild Jerusalem,
to another definitely
recorded historical event – the public manifestation of the
Messiah, the length of
the intervening period was predicted; and with accuracy absolute and to
the very
day the prediction has been fulfilled.
To elucidate that prophecy this volume has been written, and as the
result constitutes
my personal contribution to the controversy, I may be pardoned for
explaining the
steps by which it has been reached. The vision refers to 70 sevens of
years, but
I deal here only with the 69 "weeks" of the twenty-fifth verse. Here
are
the words:
Now it is an undisputed fact that Jerusalem was rebuilt by
Nehemiah, under an
edict issued by Arta-xerxes (Longimanus), in the twentieth year of his
reign. Therefore,
notwithstanding the doubts which controversy throws upon everything,
the conclusion
is obvious and irresistible that this was the epoch of the prophetic
period. But
the month date was Nisan, and the sacred year of the Jews began with
the phases of
the Paschal moon. I appealed, therefore, to the Astronomer Royal, the
late Sir George
Airy, to calculate for me the moon's place for March in the year in
question, and
I thus ascertained the date required– March 14th, B.C. 445.
This being settled, one question only remained, Of what kind of year
does the era
consist? And the answer to this is definite and clear. That it is the
ancient year
of 360 days is plainly proved in two ways. First, because, according to
Daniel and
the Apocalypse, 31/2 prophetic years are equal to 1, 260 days; and,
secondly, because
it can be proved that the 70 years of the "Desolations" were of this
character;
and the connection between the period of the "Desolations" and the era
of the "weeks" is one of the few universally admitted facts in this
controversy.
The "Desolations" began on the 10th Tebeth, B.C. 589 (a day which for
four-and-twenty
centuries has been commemorated by the Jews as a fast), and ended on
the 24th Chisleu,
B.C. 520.
Having thus settled the terminus a quo of the
"weeks," and the form
of year of which they are composed, nothing remains but to calculate
the duration
of the era. Its terminus ad quem can thus with
certainty be ascertained. Now
483 years (69 x 7) of 360 days contain 173, 880 days. And a period of
173, 880 days,
beginning March 14th, B.C. 445, ended upon that Sunday in the week of
the crucifixion,
when, for the first and only time in His ministry, the Lord Jesus
Christ, in fulfillment
of Zechariah's prophecy, made a public entry into Jerusalem, and caused
His Messiahship
to be openly proclaimed by "the whole multitude of the disciples."
(Luke
19)
I need not discuss the matter further here. In the following chapters
every incidental
question involved is fully dealt with, and every objection answered. [18] Suffice it to repeat that in
presence of the facts and figures
thus detailed no mere negation of belief is possible. These must be
accounted for
in some way. "There is a point beyond which unbelief is impossible, and
the
mind, in refusing truth, must take refuge in a misbelief which is sheer
credulity."
It was not till after the preceding pages were in print that
Archdeacon Farrar's
Daniel reached my hands. Some apology is due,
perhaps, to Professor Driver
for bracketing such a work with his, but The Expositor's
Bible will be read
by many to whom The Introduction is an unknown
book. Both writers agree in
impugning the authenticity of the Book of Daniel; but their relative
positions are
widely different, and no less so are their arguments and methods. The
Christian scholar
writes for scholars, desirous only to elucidate the truth. The popular
theologian
retails the extravagances of German skepticism for the enlightenment of
an easily
deluded public. As we turn from the one book to the other, we are
reminded of the
difference between a criminal trial when in charge of a responsible law
officer of
the Crown, and when promoted by a vindictive private prosecutor. In the
one case
the lawyer's aim is solely to assist the Court in arriving at a just
verdict, In
the other, we may be prepared for statements which are reckless, if not
unscrupulous.
And here we must distinguish between the Higher Criticism as
legitimately used by
Christian scholars in the interests of truth, and the rationalistic
movement which
bears that name. If that movement leads to unbelief, it is in obedience
to the law
that like begets like. It is itself the offspring of skepticism. Its
reputed founder
set out with the deliberate design of eliminating God from the Bible.
From the skeptic's
point of view Eichhorn's theories were inadequate, and De Wette and
others have improved
upon them. But their aim and object are the same. The Bible must be
accounted for,
and Christianity explained, on natural principles. The miracles
therefore had to
be got rid of, and prophecy is the greatest miracle of all. In the case
of most of
the Messianic Scriptures the skepticism which had settled like a night
mist upon
Germany made the task an easy one; but Daniel was a difficulty. Such
passages as
the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah could be jauntily disposed of, but
the infidel
could make nothing of these visions of Daniel. The Book stands out as a
witness for
God, and by fair means or foul it must be silenced. And one method only
of accomplishing
this is possible. The conspirators set themselves to prove that it was
written after
the events it purports to predict. The evidence they have scraped
together is of
a kind which would not avail to convict a known thief of petty larceny
– much of
it indeed has already been discarded; but any sort of evidence will
suffice with
a prejudiced tribunal, and from the very first the Book of Daniel was
doomed.
Dr. Farrar's book reproduces every shred of this evidence in its
baldest and crudest
form. His original contributions to the controversy are limited to the
rhetoric which
conceals the weakness of fallacious arguments, and the dogmatism with
which he sometimes
disposes of results accredited by the judgment of authorities of the
highest eminence.
Two typical instances will suffice. The first relates to a question of
pure scholarship.
Referring to the fifth chapter of Daniel he writes:
"Entirely untenable!" In view of the decision of the Old
Testament Company
of the Revisers on this point, the statement denotes extraordinary
carelessness or
intolerable arrogance. And I have authority for stating that the
Revisers gave the
question full consideration, and that it was only at the last revision
that the alternative
rendering, "rule as one of three," was admitted into the margin. On no
occasion was it contemplated to accept it in the text. [19]
The right rendering of ch. 5:29 is admittedly "the third
ruler"
in the kingdom; but the authorities differ as to verses 7 and 16.
Professor Driver
tells me that, in his opinion, the absolutely literal rendering there
is "rule
as a third part in the kingdom," or, slightly paraphrasing the words,
"rule
as one of three" (as in R.V. margin). Professor
Kirkpatrick, of Cambridge,
has been good enough to refer me to Kautzsch's Die Heilige
schrift des alten Testaments,
as representing the latest and best German scholarship, and his
rendering of verse
7 is "third ruler in the kingdom," with the note, "i.e.,
either
as one of three over the whole kingdom (compare 6:3), or as third by
the side of
the king and the king's mother." And the Chief Rabbi (whose courtesy to
me here
I wish to acknowledge) writes:
It is perfectly clear, therefore, that Dr. Farrar's statement
is utterly unjustifiable.
Is it to be attributed to want of scholarship, or to want of candor?
Again, referring to the prophet's third vision, Archdeacon Farrar
writes:
It is not easy to deal with such a statement with even
conventional respect. No
honest man will deny that, whether the ninth chapter of Daniel be a
prophecy or a
fraud, the blessings specified in the twenty-fourth verse are
Messianic. Here all
Christian expositors are agreed. And though the views of some of them
are marked
by startling eccentricities even the wildest of them will contrast
favorably with
Kuenen's exegesis, which, in all its crude absurdity, Archdeacon Farrar
adopts. [20]
Professor Driver's opinions are entitled to the greatest
weight within the
sphere in which he is so high an authority. [21]
But I have ventured to suggest that his eminence as a
scholar lends undue
weight to his dicta on the general topics
involved, and that he shares in
the proverbial disability of experts in dealing with a mass of
apparently conflicting
evidence. The tone and manner in which his inquiry is conducted shows a
readiness
to reconsider his position in the light of any new discoveries
hereafter. In contrast
with this there are no reserves in Dr. Farrar's denunciations. For him
retreat is
impossible, no matter what the future may disclose. But to review his
book is not
my purpose. The only serious counts in the indictment of Daniel have
been already
noticed. His treatise, however, raises a general question of
transcendent importance,
and to this I desire in conclusion to refer.
With him the Book of Daniel is the merest fiction, differing from other
fiction of
the same kind by reason of the multiplicity of its inaccuracies and
errors. Its history
is but idle legend. Its miracles are but baseless fables. It is, in
every part of
it, a work of the imagination. "Avowed fiction"
(p. 43), he calls
it, for it is so obviously a romance that the charge of fraud is due
solely to the
stupidity of the Christian Church in mistaking the aim and purpose of
"the holy
and gifted Jew" (p. 119) who wrote it.
Such are the results of his criticisms. What action shall we take upon
them? Shall
we not sadly, but with deliberate purpose, tear the Book of Daniel from
its place
in the Sacred Canon? By no means.
"These results," Dr. Farrar exclaims, "are in no way derogatory to
the preciousness of this Old Testament Apocalypse. No words of mine can
exaggerate
the value which I attach to this part of our Canonical Scriptures.. ..
Its right
to a place in the Canon is undisputed and indisputable, and there is
scarcely a single
book of the Old Testament which can be made more richly profitable for
teaching,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the
man of God
may be complete, completely furnished unto every good work" (p. 4).
This is not an isolated statement such as charity might attribute to
thoughtlessness.
Like words are used again and again in praise of the book [22] Daniel is nothing more than a
religious novel, and yet "there
is scarcely a single book of the Old
Testament" of greater worth!
The question here is not the authenticity of Daniel but the character
and value of
the Holy Scriptures. Christian scholars whose researches lead them to
reject any
portion of the Canon are wont to urge that, in doing so, they increase
the authority,
and enhance the value, of the rest. But the Archdeacon of Westminster,
in impugning
the Book of Daniel, takes occasion to degrade and throw contempt upon
the Bible as
a whole.
Bishop Westcott declares that no writing in the Old Testament had so
great a share
in the development of Christianity as the Book of Daniel. [23] Or, to quote a hostile
witness, Professor Bevan writes:
Just as mist and storm may hide the solid rock from sight, so
this truth may be
obscured by casuistry and rhetoric; but when these have spent
themselves it stands
out plain and clear. In all this controversy one result of the
rejection of the Book
of Daniel is entirely overlooked or studiously concealed. If "the
Apocalypse
of the Old Testament" be banished from the Canon, the Apocalypse of the
New
Testament must share in its exclusion. The visions of St. John are so
inseparably
interwoven with the visions of the great prophet of the exile, that
they stand or
fall together. This result the critic is entitled
to disregard. But the homilist
may by no means ignore it. And it brings into prominence the fact so
habitually forgotten,
that the Higher Criticism claims a position which can by no means be
accorded to
it. Its true place is not on the judgment seat, but in the witness
chair. The Christian
theologian must take account of much which criticism cannot notice
without entirely
abandoning its legitimate sphere and function.
No one falls back upon this position more freely when it suits his
purpose, than
Archdeacon Farrar. He evades the testimony of the twenty-fourth chapter
of St. Matthew
by refusing to believe that our Lord ever spoke the words attributed to
Him. But
this undermines Christianity; for, I repeat, Christianity rests upon
the Incarnation,
and if the Gospels be not inspired, the Incarnation is a myth. What is
his answer
to this? I quote his words:
This deserves the closest attention, not merely because of its bearing on the question at issue, but as a fair specimen of the writer's reasoning in this extraordinary contribution to our theological literature. Here is the Christian argument:
On what then do we base our belief of the great central fact of the Christian system? Here the dilemma is inexorable: to disparage the Gospels, as this writer does, is to admit that the foundation of our faith is but a Galilaean legend. By no means, Dr. Farrar tells us; we have not only "personal verification, and the Inward Witness of the Spirit, but we have also myriads of external and independent witnesses." No Christian will ignore the Witness of the Spirit. But the question here, remember, is one of fact. The whole Christian system depends upon the truth of the last verse of the first chapter of St. Matthew – I will not quote it. How then can the Holy Spirit impart to me the knowledge of the fact there stated, save by the written Word? I believe the fact because I accept the record as God-breathed Scripture, an authoritative revelation from heaven. But to talk of personal verification, or to appeal to some transcendental instinct, or to tens of thousands of external witnesses, is to divorce words from thoughts, and to pass out of the sphere of intelligent statement and common sense. [26]
TO living men no time can be so solemn as "the living present," whatever
its characteristics; and that solemnity is immensely deepened in an age of progress
unparalleled in the history of the world. But the question arises whether these days
of ours are momentous beyond comparison, by reason of their being in the strictest
sense the last? Is the world's history about to close? The sands of its destiny,
are they almost run out, and is the crash of all things near at hand?
Earnest thinkers will not allow the wild utterances of alarmists, or the vagaries
of prophecy-mongers, to divert them from an inquiry at once so solemn and so reasonable.
It is only the infidel who doubts that there is a destined limit to the course of
"this present evil world." That God will one day put forth His power to
ensure the triumph of the good, is in some sense a matter of course. The mystery
of revelation is not that He will do this, but that He delays to do
it. Judged by the public facts around us, He is an indifferent spectator of the unequal
struggle between good and evil upon earth.
And how can such things be, if indeed the God who rules above is almighty and all-good? Vice and godlessness and violence and wrong are rampant upon every side, and yet the heavens above keep silence. The infidel appeals to the fact in proof that the Christian's God is but a myth. [1]
The Christian finds in it a further proof that the God he worships is patient and longsuffering� "patient because He is eternal," longsuffering because He is almighty, for wrath is a last resource with power. But the day is coming when1. According to Mill, the course of the world gives proof that both the power and the goodness of God are limited. His Essays on Religion clearly show that skepticism is an attitude of mind which it is practically impossible to maintain. Even with a reasoner so clear and able as Mill, it inevitably degenerates to a degrading form of faith." The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural" (he declares) "is that of skepticism, as distinguished from belief on the one hand, and from atheism on the other;" and yet he immediately proceeds to formulate a creed. It is not that there is a God, for that is only probable, but that if there be a God He is not almighty, and His goodness toward man is limited. (Essays, etc., pp. 242, 243.) He does not prove his creed, of course. Its truth is obvious to a "thinking mind." It is equally obvious that the sun moves round the earth. A man only needs to be as ignorant of astronomy as the infidel is of Christianity, and he will find the most indisputable proof of the fact every time he surveys the heavens!
But it will prove a sufficient safeguard against error in the study. Notably it will save us from the follies into which false systems of prophetic chronology inevitably lead those who follow them. It is not in our time only that the end of the world has been predicted. It was looked for far more confidently at the beginning of the sixth century. All Europe rang with it in the days of Pope Gregory the Great. And at the end of the tenth century the apprehension of it amounted to a general panic. "It was then frequently preached on, and by breathless crowds listened to; the subject of every one's thoughts, every one's conversation." "Under this impression, multitudes innumerable," says Mosheim, "having given their property to monasteries or churches, traveled to Palestine, where they expected Christ to descend to judgment. Others bound themselves by solemn oaths to be serfs to churches or to priests, in hopes of a milder sentence on them as being servants of Christ's servants. In many places buildings were let go to decay, as that of which there would be no need in future. And on occasions of eclipses of sun or moon, the people fled in multitudes for refuge to the caverns and the rocks."[3]2. Prophecy is not given to enable us to prophesy, but as a witness to God when the time comes." � PUSEY, Daniel, p. 80.
And so in recent years, one date after another has been confidently named for the supreme crisis; but still the world goes on. A.D. 581 was one of the first years fixed for the event,[4] 1881 is among the last. These pages are not designed to perpetuate the folly of such predictions, but to endeavor in a humble way to elucidate the meaning of a prophecy which ought to deliver us from all such errors and to rescue the study from the discredit they bring upon it.3. Elliott, Horae Apoc. (3rd Ed.), 1., 446: and see also ch. 3, pp. 362-376.
No words ought to be necessary to enforce the importance of the subject, and yet the neglect of the prophetic Scriptures, by those even who profess to believe all Scripture to be inspired, is proverbial. Putting the matter on the lowest ground, it might be urged that if a knowledge of the past be important, a knowledge of the future must be of far higher value still, in enlarging the mind and raising it above the littlenesses produced by a narrow and unenlightened contemplation of the present. If God has vouchsafed a revelation to men, the study of it is surely fitted to excite enthusiastic interest, and to command the exercise of every talent which can be brought to bear upon it.4. Elliott, 1., 373. Hippolytus predicted A. D. 500.
Is the Bible a revelation from God? This is now become the greatest and most pressing of all questions. We may at once dismiss the quibble that the Scriptures admittedly contain a revelation. Is the sacred volume no better than a lottery bag from which blanks and prizes are to be drawn at random, with no power of distinguishing between them till the day when the discovery must come too late! And in the present phase of the question it is no less a quibble to urge that passages, and even books, may have been added in error to the Canon. We refuse to surrender Holy Writ to the tender mercies of those who approach it with the ignorance of pagans and the animus of apostates. But for the purpose of the present controversy we might consent to strike out everything on which enlightened criticism has cast the shadow of a doubt. This, however, would only clear the way for the real question at issue, which is not as to the authenticity of one portion or another, but as to the character and value of what is admittedly authentic. We are now far beyond discussing rival theories of inspiration; what concerns us is to consider whether the holy writings are what they claim to be, "the oracles of God."[6]5. I cannot refrain from giving the following extract from an article by Professor Goldwin Smith, in Macmillian's Magazine for February 1878:
"The denial of the existence of God and of the future state, in a word, is the dethronement of conscience; and society will pass, to say the least, through a dangerous interval before social science can fill the vacant throne�But in the meantime mankind, or some portions of it, may be in danger of an anarchy of self-interest, compressed, for the purpose of political order, by a despotism of force.
"That science and criticism, acting � thanks to the liberty of opinion won by political effort � with a freedom never known before, have delivered us from a mass of dark and degrading superstitions, we own with heartfelt thankfulness to the deliverers, and in the firm conviction that the removal of false beliefs, and of the authorities or institutions founded on them, cannot prove in the end anything but a blessing to mankind. But at the same time the foundations of general morality have inevitably been shaken, and a crisis has been brought on, the gravity of which nobody can fail to see, and nobody but a fanatic of materialism can see without the most serious misgiving.
"There has been nothing in the history of man like the present situation. The decadence of the ancient mythologies is very far from affording a parallel�The Reformation was a tremendous earthquake: it shook down the fabric of mediaeval religion, and as a consequence of the disturbance in the religious sphere, filled the world with revolutions and wars. But it left the authority of the Bible unshaken, and men might feel that the destructive process had its limit, and that adamant was still beneath their feet. But a world which is intellectual and keenly alive to the significance of these questions, reading all that is written about them with almost passionate avidity, finds itself brought to a crisis the character of which any one may realize by distinctly presenting to himself the idea of existence without a God."
In the midst of error and confusion and uncertainty, increasing on every side, can earnest and devout souls turn to an open Bible, and find there "words of eternal life"? "The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural is that of skepticism."[7]6. ta logia tou theou (Romans 3:2). The old Hebrew Scriptures were thus regarded by those who were the divinely-appointed custodians of them (ib.) Not only by the devout among the Jews, but, as Josephus testifies, by all, they "were justly believed to be Divine," so that men were willing to endure tortures of all kinds rather than speak against them, and even "willingly to die for them" (Josephus, Apion, 1., 8). This fact is of immense importance in relation to the Lord's own teaching on the subject. Dealing with a people who believed in the sanctity and value of every word of Scripture, He never missed an opportunity to confirm them in that belief. The New Testament affords abundant proof how unreservedly He enforced it upon His disciples. (As regards the limits and date of closing of the Canon of Scripture, see Pusey, Daniel, p. 294, etc.)
Reason may bow before the shibboleths and tricks of priestcraft� "the voice of the Church," as it is called; but this is sheer credulity. But if GOD speaks, then skepticism gives place to faith. Nor is this a mere begging of the question. The proof that the voice is really Divine must be absolute and conclusive. In such circumstances, skepticism betokens mental or moral degradation, and faith is not the abnegation of reason, but the highest act of reason. To maintain that such proof is impossible, is equivalent to asserting that the God who made us cannot so speak to us that the voice shall carry with it the conviction that it is from Him; and this is not skepticism at all, but disbelief and atheism. "It pleased God to reveal His Son in me," was St. Paul's account of his conversion. The grounds of his faith were subjective, and could not be produced. In proof to others of their reality he could only appeal to the facts of his life; though these were entirely the result, and in no sense or degree the basis, of his conviction. Nor was his case exceptional. St. Peter was one of the favored three who witnessed every miracle, including the transfiguration, and yet his faith was not the result of these, but sprang from a revelation to himself. In response to his confession,7. Mill, Essays on Religion.
Nor, again, was this a special grace accorded only to apostles.
was St. Peter's address to the faithful generally. He describes them as "born again by the Word of God." So also St. John speaks of such as
is the kindred statement of St. James. (James 1:18).
Whatever be the meaning of such words, they must mean something more than arriving
at a sound conclusion from sufficient premises, or accepting facts upon sufficient
evidence. Nor will it avail to urge that this birth was merely the mental or moral
change naturally caused by the truth thus attained by natural means. The language
of the Scripture is unequivocal that the power of the testimony to produce this change
depended on the presence and operation of God. Pages might be filled with quotations
to prove this, but two may surface. St. Peter declares they preached the Gospel
and St. Paul's words are still more definite. "Our Gospel came not: unto you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost."[8]
And if the new birth and the faith of Christianity were thus produced in the case of persons who received the Gospel immediately from the Apostles, nothing less will avail with us who are separated by eighteen centuries from the witnesses and their testimony. God is with His people still. And He speaks to men's hearts, now, as really as He did in early times; not indeed through inspired Apostles, and still less by dreams or visions, but through the Holy Writings which He Himself inspired;[9] and as the result believers are "born of God," and obtain the knowledge of forgiveness of sins and of eternal life. The phenomenon is not a natural one, resulting from the study of the evidences; it is supernatural altogether. "Thinking minds," regarding it objectively, may, if they please, maintain towards it what they deem "a rational attitude;" but at least let them own the fact that there are thousands of credible people who can testify to the reality of the experience here spoken of, and further let them recognize that it is entirely in accordance with the teaching of the New Testament.8. alla kai en dunamei kai en pneumati agio (1 Thessalonians 1:5.) "But also in power, even in the Holy Ghost." There is no contrast intended between God on the one hand, and power on the other, nor yet between different sorts of power. To object that this referred to miracles which accompanied the preaching is to betray ignorance of Scripture. Acts 17 represents the preaching to which the Apostle was alluding. That miraculous power existed in Gentile Churches is clear from 1 Corinthians 12 but the question is, did the gospel which produced those Churches appeal to miracles to confirm it? Can any one read the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians and retain a doubt as to the answer?
And such persons have transcendental proof of the truth of Christianity. Their faith rests, not on the phenomena of their own experience, but on the great objective truths of revelation. Yet their primary conviction that these are Divine truths does not depend on the "evidences" which skepticism delights to criticize, but on something which skepticism takes no account of.[10]9. God is omnipresent; but there is a real sense in which the Father and the Son are not on earth but in heaven, and in that same sense the Holy Spirit is not in heaven but on earth.
"No book can be written in behalf of the Bible like the Bible itself. Man's defenses are man's word; they may help to beat off attacks, they may draw out some portion of its meaning. The Bible is God's word, and through it God the Holy Ghost, who spake it, speaks to the soul which closes not itself against it."[11]10. Such faith is inseparably connected with salvation, and salvation is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8). Hence the solemn words of Christ, "I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes" (Matthew 11:25).
But more than this, the well-instructed believer will find within it inexhaustible stores of proof that it is from God. The Bible is far more than a textbook of theology and morals, or even than a guide to heaven. It is the record of the progressive revelation God has vouchsafed to man, and the Divine history of our race in connection with that revelation. Ignorance may fail to see in it anything more than the religious literature of the Hebrew race, and of the Church in Apostolic times; but the intelligent student who can read between the lines will find there mapped out, sometimes in clear bold outline, sometimes dimly, but yet always discernible by the patient and devout inquirer, the great scheme of God's counsels and workings in and for this world of ours from eternity to eternity.11. Pusey, Daniel, Pref. p. 25.
True prophetic study is an inquiry into these unsearchable counsels, these deep
riches of Divine wisdom and knowledge. Beneath the light it gives, the Scriptures
are no longer a heterogeneous compilation of religious books, but one harmonious
whole, from which no part could be omitted without destroying the completeness of
the revelation. And yet the study is disparaged in the Churches as being of no practical
importance. If the Churches are leavened with skepticism at this moment, their neglect
of prophetic study in this its true and broader aspect has done more than all the
rationalism of Germany to promote the evil. Skeptics may boast of learned Professors
and Doctors of Divinity among their ranks, but we may challenge them to name a single
one of the number who has given proof that he knows anything whatever of these deeper
mysteries of revelation. The attempt to put back the rising tide of skepticism is
hopeless. Indeed the movement is but one of many phases of the intense mental activity
which marks the age. The reign of creeds is past. The days are gone for ever when
men will believe what their fathers believed, without a question. Rome, in some phase
of its development, has a strange charm for minds of a certain caste, and rationalism
is fascinating to not a few; but orthodoxy in the old sense is dead, and if any are
to be delivered it must be by a deeper and more thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.
These pages are but a humble effort to this end; but if they avail in any measure
to promote the study of Holy Writ their chief purpose will be fulfilled. The reader
therefore may expect to find the accuracy of the Bible vindicated on points which
may seem of trifling value. When David reached the throne of Israel and came to choose
his generals, he named for the chief commands the men who had made themselves conspicuous
by feats of prowess or of valor. Among the foremost three was one of whom the record
states that he defended a tract of lentiles, and drove away a troop of the Philistines.
(2 Samuel 23:11, 12)? To others it may have seemed little better than a patch of
weeds, and not worth fighting for, but it was precious to the Israelite as a portion
of the divinely-given inheritance, and moreover the enemy might have used it as a
rallying ground from which to capture strongholds. So is it with the Bible. It is
all of intrinsic value if indeed it be from God; and moreover, the statement which
is assailed, and which may seem of no importance, may prove to be a link in the chain
of truth on which we are depending for eternal life.