« AnteriorContinuar »
began to prophesy in the fifth year ofkm% fehoiachiris captivity, the son and successor of Jehoiakim, (Ezek. I. 2.) that is eleven years after. When Daniel was first carried into captivity, he might be a youth (4) about eighteen: but when Ezekiel magnified his piety and wisdom, (Chap. XIV. and XXVIII.) he was between thirty and forty: and several years before that he had interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's -dream, and was advanced (Dan. II. 48.) to be ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wife men of Babylon; and was therefore very sit and* worthy to be celebrated by his fellow-captive Ezekiei.
2. His secondobjection is, that Daniel is represented in the book of Daniel as living chiefly at the courts of the kings of Babylon and Persia; and yet the names of the several kings of his time are all mistaken in the book of Daniel. It is also more suited to a fabulous writer than to a contemporary historian, to talk of Nebuchadnezzar s dwelling with the beajls of the field, a?id eating grafs like oxen &c, and then returning again to the government of his kingdom. Here are two objections confounded in one." As to
- ■ , ■ the
Vindication, p. 3—60. Part 1. Book 1.
(4.) Prideaux's Connection.
■ B 3 (5) K«, the mistake of the kings names, there are onlyfour kings mentioned in the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus. Of the first and the last there was never any doubt; and the other two may be rightly named, tho' they are named differently by the Greek historians, who yet differ as much one from another as from Daniel. It is well known that the eastern monarchs had several names; and one might be made use of by one writer, another by another. It is plainly begging the question, to presume without farther proof, that Daniel was not the oldest of these writers, and had not better opportunities of knowing the names than any of them. As to the cafe of Nebuchadnezzar, it is related indeed in the prophetic figurative stile. It is the interpretation of a dream, and stript of its figures the plain meaning is, that Nebuchadnezzar should be punished with madness, should fancy himself a beast and live like a beast, should bs made ta eat grafs as oxen, be obliged to live upon a vegetable diet, but after some time should recover his reason, and resume the government. And what is there fabulous or absurd in this? The dream was not of Daniel's inditing, but was told by Nebuchadnezzar himself. The dream is in a poetic strain, and so likewise is
the the interpretation, the better to show how the one corresponded with the other, and how the prophecy and event agreed together.
3. He objects that the book of Daniel could not be written by that Daniel who was carried captive in the Babylonish captivity, because it abounds with derivations from the Greek* which language was unknown to the Jews till long after the captivity. The assertion js false that the book of Daniel abounds with derivations from the Greek. There is an affinity only between some few words in the Greek and the Chaldee language: and why must they be derived the one from the other? or if derived, why should not the Greeks derive them from the Chaldee, rather than the ChalT dees from the Greek? If the words in question could be shown to be of Greek extraction, yet there was some communication between the eastern kingdoms and the colonies of the Greeks settled in Asia Minor before Nebuchadnezzar's time; and so some particular terms might pass from the Greek into the oriental languages. But on the contrary the words in question are shown to be not of Greek but of eastern derivation j and consequently passed from the east to the Greeks, rather than from the Greeks to the east. Most of the words are names of musical
B 4 instruinstruments; and the Greeks (5) acknowlege that they received their music from the eastern nations, from whence they themselves originally descended.
4. It doth not appear, says the objector, that the book of Daniel was translated into Greek, when the other books of the Old Testament were, which are attributed to the Seventy; the present Greek version, inserted in the Septuagint* being taken fromTheodotion's translation of the Old Testament made in the second century of Christ. But it doth appear, that there was an ancient Greek version of Daniel, which is attributed to the Seventy, as well as the version of the other books of the Old Testament. It is cited by Clemens Romanus, Justin Martyr, and many of the ancient fathers. It was inserted in Origen, and filled a column of his Hexapla. It is quoted several times by Jerome} and he faith (6) expresly, that the version of the Seventy was repudiated by the doctors of the church, and that of Theodotion substituted in the room of it, because it came nearer to the Hebrew verity.
(5) K*i Tw Aioreru Ttiv Aa\*> Strabo, Lib. 10. p. 471. Edit.
xaSiSc^amj /*epc?' *"£ '***" Paris- 1620. p. 722. Edit.
ixuSsi' xai Tr,» iro>Ovr,v.fjÆtrixri? Amstel. 1707. Vide etiam AfjLt-.aipf^n<ri. Et cum Baccho thenæi Lib. 14. p. 62J, &c. totam Asiam ad Indiam usque
conse<rravi-rint,magnamquoque (6) Danie'em prophetam muficseparteminde transferupr. juxta Septuaginta interpretes
5. It is objected that divers matters of fact are spoken of with the clearness of history, to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is very particularly dwelt upon, and that with great and seeming fresh resentment for his barbarous usage os the Jews: And this clearness determined Porphyry, and would determin any one to think, that the book was written about the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, the author appearing to be well acquainted with things down to the death of Antiochus but not farther. But what an argument is this against the book of Daniel? His prophecies are clear, and therefore are no prophecies: as if an all-knowing God could not foretel things clearly; or as if there were not many predictions in other prophets, as clear as any in Daniel. If his prophecies extend not lower than the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, his commission might be limited there, and he would not go beyond his commission. But it hath been shown, and will be sliown, that there are several prophecies in Daniel relating to times long after the death of Antiochus, and these
Domini Salvatoris ecclesiæ non rum [LXX] repudiata est, et legunt, utentes Theodotionis Theodotionis vulgo legitur, editione :—quod multum a ve- quæetHebræo, et cæteris transritate discordet, et recto judicio latoribus congruit. &c. Comrepudiatus fit. Hieron. Præf. ment. in Dan. IV. Col. 1088. inD an. Vol. 1. p. 987. Judicio Vol. 3. Edit. Benedict. gia<$-strorum ecclesiæ editio eo