The Genuineness of the Book of Daniel.
In entering upon the study of lessons in the book of Daniel, it is important to have some definite knowledge in respect to its genuineness, authenticity, and divine authority. The fact that we find a book included in the Sacred Canon, and generally accepted by the church, is strong presumptive evidence of its right to be there, and of its true character. But this fact ought not to be the extent of the teacher’s information upon the subject. An inquiring young Bible scholar will naturally wish to know the reasons for counting the book genuine and true. As there has been some confusion among the earlier writers on the evidences of Christianity, in regard to the use of the words genuineness and authenticity, it will be well to explain them. A book is genuine, if it was written when, where, and by whom, it claims to have been penned; it is authentic, if its contents are truthful, and can be relied on in matters of which it professes to speak; it is of divine authority, if it was written by direction of God, and under his special guidance. That the book of Daniel was written by the person whose name it bears, and at the time of the long captivity of the Jews in Babylon, was not disputed until about the third century after Christ. Some of the proofs of its genuineness are: (1) Copies of the book are mentioned as in existence several centuries before the beginning of the Christian era. (2) It was included in the Hebrew Sacred Canon. (3) Christ refers to it as a reliable prophecy. (Matt. 24 : 15.) About the third century, Porphyry, a bitter enemy of Christianity, first sought to discredit the book, by maintaining that it was spurious, having been composed at a much later date than the captivity, by some uninspired writer, who falsely assumed the name of the prophet. This objection was answered at the time, but it has been revived again by the German and other skeptical writers. Their supposed proof of this assertion rests chiefly upon the minuteness and accuracy of the predictions in the book, which correspond so exactly with history that they claim it must have been written after the events had happened. The particularity and exactness of detail with which the events are mentioned may readily be admitted, and if it can be shown that this account was written before they occurred, then, upon the testimony of these writers themselves, the book is proved to be all that it claims. These writers assert that it was written during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, about B. C. 170. But later investigations have quite satisfactorily established the fact that a “Greek version of Daniel was made during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, more than seventy years before the accession of Epiphanes.” (2) Passages of the book of Daniel are referred to by Jesus, the son of Sirach, who must have written as early as B. C. 180, or before the time of Epiphanes. (3) Josephus states that Daniel’s prophecies were shown to Alexander the Great in B. C. 332, and inclined him to treat the Jews with special favor. These facts are proved by testimony of the most trustworthy character, and never have been successfully called in question. A weak argument against the genuineness of the book of Daniel has been founded upon the fact that it is written in Hebrew and Chaldee, with an intermingling of Greek words, which it is claimed indicates a later age than the time of the captivity. But this fact, on the contrary, is one of the strongest incidental proofs that it belongs to that time. Like the books of Ezra and Jeremiah, being written partly in Hebrew and partly in Chaldee, is a peculiarity which could only occur when the two languages were currently spoken by the Jews, and is found only in the writings of about the time of the captivity. And the changes in the language of the book occur where they might most naturally be expected. The introduction is written in Hebrew; with the answer of the Chaldeans (chap. 2 : 4,) the language changes to Aramaic or Chaldee, and it is used until the close of the seventh chapter. The writer then resumes the Hebrew, which is retained to the close of the book. These changes are such as would be most likely to be made by one who was writing, not for the learned Jews at a later date, but for the common people, during the Babylonian captivity. It would be most natural for the writer to begin such a narrative in his native language, the Hebrew, but when he attempted to give the speeches at court, or to relate the proceedings there, the language spoken at a court, and which was understood by the Jews generally, would be more natural, and hence he uses the Chaldee. Again, when the personal introduction of Daniel as the writer of the text is given, and the restoration of the Jews and the future dealings of God with them, are subjects of record, the native Hebrew is the language best adapted for writing upon these themes, and, therefore, it is selected by the author of this book. The great similarity in the subject of the seventh and of the second chapters, and the writer’s formal introduction of himself in the eighth chapter, are sufficient to account for continuing the Chaldee in the seventh chapter. In regard to the intermingling of Greek words in its composition, it is sufficient to remark that only ten such words have been cited by the objectors, and only four of these are shown to be of Greek origin. These are the names of four musical instruments, said to be in use in Babylon at that time. Nor is the use of these words a fact at all surprising, since the intercourse of the East and the West was such that a Greek, the brother of Alcaeus, had already gained distinction “at the furtherest end of the world, aiding the Babylonians.” A learned English writer observes, “It is far more difficult to explain the composition of Daniel in the Maccabean period, than to connect the peculiarities which it exhibits with the exigencies of the return.” “The peculiarities of language, the acquaintances with Eastern manners and history, the reception into the canon the phenomena of the Alexandrine version,” the Oriental characters and scenes, all point to the genuineness of the book, and prove beyond a doubt that it was written by the author whose name it bears, and at the time of the captivity at Babylon.—S. S. World.