SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
DANIEL IN THE
CRITICS' DEN
PREFACE and
CONTENTS
ALTHOUGH this volume appears under an old title, it is
practically a new work. The title remains, lest any who possess my "Reply to
Dean Farrar's Book of Daniel" should feel aggrieved on finding part of that
treatise reproduced under a new designation. But the latter half of this book
is new; and the whole has been recast, in view of its main purpose and aim as a
reply to Professor Driver's Commentary in "The Cambridge Bible" series. The
appearance of Professor Driver's Book of Daniel marks an epoch in the Daniel
controversy. ( It appeared first as an article in Blackwood's Magazine, and
afterwards separately in book form.) Hitherto there has been no work in
existence which English exponents of the sceptical hypothesis would accept as a
fair and adequate expression of their views. But now the oracle has spoken. The
most trusted champion of the Higher Criticism in England has formulated the
case against the Book of Daniel; and if that case can be refuted - if it can be
shown that its apparent force depends on a skilful presentation of doubtful
evidence upon the one side, to the exclusion of overwhelmingly cogent evidence
upon the other - the result ought to be an "end of controversy" on the whole
question.
It rests with others to decide whether this result is established
in the following pages. I am willing to stake it upon the issues specified in
Chapter VII. And even if the reader should see fit to make that chapter the
starting-point of his perusal of my book, I am still prepared to claim his
verdict in favour of Daniel.
And here I should premise, what will be found
more than once repeated in the sequel, that the inquiry involved in the Daniel
controversy is essentially judicial. An experienced Judge with an intelligent
jury - any tribunal, indeed, accustomed to sift and weigh conflicting testimony
- would be better fitted to deal with it than a Company of all the philologists
of Christendom. The philologist's proper place is in the witness-chair. He can
supply but a part, and that by no means the most important part, of the
necessary evidence. And if a single well-ascertained fact be inconsistent with
his theories, the fact must prevail. But this the specialist is proverbially
slow to recognise. He is always apt to exaggerate the importance of his own
testimony, and to betray impatience when evidence of another kind is allowed
legitimate weight. And nowhere is this tendency more marked than among the
critics.
In the preface to his Continuity of Scripture, Lord Hatherley
speaks of "the supposed evidence on which are based some very confident
assertions of a self-styled 'higher criticism.'" And he adds, "Assuming the
learning to be profound and accurate which has collected the material for much
critical performance, the logic by which conclusions are deduced from those
materials is frequently grievously at fault, and open to the judgment of all
who may have been accustomed to sift and weigh evidence." My apology for this
book is that I can claim a humble place in the category described in these
concluding words. Long accustomed to deal with evidence in difficult and
intricate inquiries, I have set myself to investigate the genuineness of the
Book of Daniel, and the results of my inquiry are here recorded.
Lord
Hatherley was not the only Lord Chancellor of our time to whom earnest thought
and study brought a settled conviction of the Divine authority and absolute
integrity of Holy Scripture. The two very great men who in turn succeeded him
in that high office, though versed in the literature of the critics, held
unflinchingly to the same conclusion. And while some, perhaps, would dismiss
the judgment of men like Lord Cairns and Lord Selborne as being that of "mere
laymen," sensible people the whole world over would accept their decision upon
an intricate judicial question of this kind against that of all the pundits of
Christendom.
As regards my attitude towards criticism, I deprecate being
misunderstood. Every book I have written gives proof of fearlessness in
applying critical methods to the study of the Bible. But the Higher Criticism
is a mere travesty of all true criticism. Secular writers are presumed to be
trustworthy unless reason is found to discredit their testimony. But the Higher
Criticism starts with the assumption that everything in Scripture needs to be
confirmed by external evidence. It reeks of its evil origin in German
infidelity. My indictment of it, therefore, is not that it is criticism, but
that it is criticism of a low and spurious type, akin to that for which the
baser sort of "Old Bailey" practitioner is famed. True criticism seeks to
elucidate the truth: the Higher Criticism aims at establishing pre-judged
results. And in exposing such a system the present volume has an importance far
beyond the special subject of which it treats. A single instance will suffice.
The "Annalistic tablet" of Cyrus, which records his conquest of Babylon, is
received by the critics as Gospel truth, albeit the deception which underlies
it would be clear even to a clever schoolboy. But even as read by the critics
it affords confirmation of Daniel which is startling in its definiteness in
regard to Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. It tells us that the capture of the
inner city was marked by the death of Belshazzar, or (as the inscription calls
him throughout) "the son of the king." And further, we learn from it that
Cyrus's triumph was shared by a Median of such note that his name was united
with his own in the proclamation of an amnesty. And yet so fixed is the
determination of the critics to discredit the Book of Daniel, that all this is
ignored.
The inadequacy of the reasons put forward for rejecting Daniel
clearly indicate that there is some potent reason of another kind in the
background. It was the miraculous element in the book that set the whole pack
of foreign sceptics in full cry. In this age of a silent heaven such men will
not tolerate the idea that God ever intervened directly in the affairs of men.
But this is too large a subject for incidental treatment. I have dealt with it
in The Silence of God, and I would refer
specially to Chapter III. of that work.
Other incidental questions involved
in the controversy I have treated of here; but as they are incidental, I have
relegated them to the Appendix. And if any one claims a fuller discussion of
them, I must ask leave to refer to the work alluded to by Professor Driver in
his Book of Daniel - namely,
The
Coming Prince, or The Seventy Weeks of Daniel.
R.A.
PREFATORY NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION
MOST of the "historical errors"
in Daniel, which Professor Driver has copied from Bertholdt's work of a century
ago, have been disposed of by the erudition and research of our own day. But
the identity of Darius the Mede has been referred to in former editions of the
present work as an unsolved historical difficulty in the Daniel controversy.
That question, however, seems to be settled by a verse in Ezra, which has
hitherto been used only by Voltaire and others to discredit the Prophet's
narrative.
Ezra records that in the reign of Darius Hystaspis the Jews
presented a petition to the King, in which they recited Cyrus' decree
authorising the rebuilding of their Temple. The wording of the petition clearly
indicates that, to the knowledge of the Jewish leaders, the decree in question
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 vi. 2). How, then, could a State paper of this kind have been
transferred to the Median capital?
The only reasonable explanation of this
extraordinary fact completes the proof that the vassal king whom Daniel calls
Darius was the Median general, Gobryas (or Gubaru), who led the army of Cyrus
to Babylon. As noticed in these pages (163, 165, ftost), the testimony of the
inscriptions points to that conclusion. After the taking of the city, his name
was coupled with that of Cyrus in proclaiming an amnesty. And he it was 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 honour. He had 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.
I will only add that the confusion and error which the "Higher
Critics" attribute to the sacred writers are mainly due to their own failure to
distinguish between the several judgments of the era of the exile - the
"Servitude," the "Captivity," and the "Desolations" (Jer. xxix. 10; 2 Chron.
xxxvi. 21.
CONTENTS
I THE "HIGHER
CRITICISM," AND DEAN FARRAR'S ESTIMATE OF THE BIBLE. . I
II. THE HISTORICAL ERRORS OF DANIEL . . 12
III. HISTORICAL ERRORS CONTINUED: BELSHAZZAR AND DARIUS
THE MEDE . . . 23
IV. "PHILOLOGICAL PECULIARITIES":
THE LANGUAGE OF DANIEL . . . . . 42
V. THE POSITIVE
EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF DANIEL . . . . . . . 56
VI.
"VIOLENT ERRORS" . . . . . 7.9
VII. PROFESSOR
DRIVER'S "BOOK OF DANIEL "- THE EVIDENCE OF THE CANON . . 92
VIII. THE VISION OF THE "SEVENTY WEEKS "- THE PROPHETIC
YEAR . . . . 112
IX. THE FULFILMENT OF THE VISION OF
THE "WEEKS" . . . . . . 124
X. SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSION . . . 135
APPENDICES
I.
NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S FIRST INVASION OF JUDEA . 153
II. THE DEATH OF BELSHAZZAR 160
III. THE PUNCTUATION OF DANIEL IX. 167
IV. THE JEWISH CALENDAR . . . 171
V. THE TWENTIETH YEAR OF ARTAXERXES . 174
VI. THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION . . 176
VII. PROFESSOR DRIVER'S INDICTMENT OF DANIEL 179
Daniel in the Critics' Den - Chapter One
Literature | Photos | Links | Home