It will be observed that only in exceptional cases have I given comments upon particular passages, cited by the pages on which they occur. For the most part what explanation I offer takes the form of analysis of discourses, or other divisions of prophecy; this analytic comment is distinguished to the eye by indenting, and as a rule what stands between two dashes represents a paragraph of the text.

DANIEL

Before a literary work can be correctly described it is necessary to grasp it in its unity. A difficulty in regard to this attaches to the Book of Daniel, from the fact that two distinct structures underlie the surface of the work, which need explaining and, as far as may be, harmonising. (1) On the one hand, the book contains, first, a series of six prophetic stories, presenting Daniel and his comrades as faithful to their religion amid Babylonian surroundings, while Daniel himself is described as miraculously endowed with power to read mysteries supernaturally manifested to others. This part of the work is told in the third person, and seems to be brought to a conclusion in the words: So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Then follows, as a seventh section, an apocalypse or revelation, in which alike the supernatural manifestations and their interpretations are given to Daniel himself from without; throughout this revelation Daniel speaks in the first person. (2) On the other hand, it is to be noted that the commencement and the latter part of the book are in Hebrew, while the middle is in the Aramaic dialect. (See pages 6, 31.) The Aramaic portion commences just where (in the second story) certain Chaldeans are described as speaking in the Syrian language; the dialect continues, however, long past the speech

so commenced, and through subsequent sections; until Hebrew is, for no obvious reason, resumed in the middle of the seventh section (the revelation), at the commencement of the second of the four visions of which this section is made up.

A simple explanation of this double structure would be to suppose that the Aramaic portion was a fragment, - a fragment in the strictest sense, commencing abruptly in the middle of a sentence; and that this was completed by a Hebrew writer, who both supplied an introduction leading up to the abrupt commencement of the fragment, and also added further visions. For both his contributions he would probably use traditional material: that there was plenty of such material attaching to the history of Daniel is clear from the stories of Daniel that are preserved in apocryphal scriptures. It will be observed that, on this supposition, both the literary types which are united in the complete Book of Daniel — prophetic story and apocalypse · would be within the Aramaic fragment; the Hebrew editor enlarged, but did not alter, the character of the work. He even kept up the narration in the first person, which is found in the Aramaic portion from the point where the revelation commences.*

If such a supposition be correct, it might be expected that difference of detail would be perceptible between the style or spirit of the original and the additional matter: and this is found to be the case. So far as the supplementary commencement is concerned, it amounts to no more than an explanation

* It will be noted that the suggestion here made is different from Meinhold's theory, which supposes only ii. 4-vi to have been the original fragment.

as to who Daniel and his comrades were, and the addition of the circumstance, entirely in keeping with what follows, that they made a stand against defiling themselves with the king's meat. But it is different with the three visions added to the single vision which constituted the revelation of the Aramaic fragment: here important differences of spirit are noticeable. (1) The elements of the original revelation are within the limits of the typical, and thus entirely in the spirit of emblem prophecy: four portentous beasts, symbolising mutations of kingdoms, contrasted with the reign of the saints. In the visions which are added we get particular kingdoms, specific events. The two-horned Ram and the He-goat are at once interpreted as the king of Media and Persia and the king of Greece; we read subsequently of a 'king of the north' and a 'king of the south,' and elaborate details of their union and discord. The whole spirit of the revelation is changed: from what has been called the prophetic philosophy of history we pass to a very different interest-specific prediction of the future. (2) Again, in the fragment the machinery of vision (so to speak) is taken for granted: I saw in my vision by night, and behold-I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him, etc. In the Hebrew portion great pains is taken to emphasise the supernatural character of the visitation: it is said how the prophet was in reality in one province while in the vision he seemed to be in another; elaborate details are given of the physical prostration attending the contact with the superhuman; it is remarked how Daniel alone saw the vision, while those with him quaked and fled but saw nothing. If the editor has kept

within the form of his original, he has enlarged from it in the spirit of the writing.

As the Book of Daniel is found to have a twofold structure, so the motive or purpose of the work must be pronounced twofold. If the book be taken as it stands, and the relation of its component parts examined, then the general purpose of the whole seems to be this: the six stories emphasise the character of Daniel and his God-given power to read supernatural mysteries -a power tested of course by the events -as a basis of credibility for the final revelation made to himself, much of which (it must be supposed) yet remained to be fulfilled. When, however, we read the Aramaic fragment by itself, any such underlying purpose is thrown into the background by another. The older Book of Daniel is, like the Book of Esther, a story of the Captivity. Daniel is the chief of several Judean captives who maintain their Hebrew faith and life against all the power of Babylon. They all, and especially Daniel, surpass the Chaldeans in their own boasted power of soothsaying and dream interpretation. They draw from the conquerors recognition of the superiority of the Hebrew God: at the close of one incident Nebuchadnezzar worships Daniel with oblation and sweet odours; on another occasion he makes a decree that every people, nation, and language that speak against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be cut in pieces; the dream of the tree that was cut down is told in a proclamation made by the Babylonian king to his whole empire in honour of the God who has brought such a marvel to pass. And as the stories of the Aramaic fragment picture the Hebrews in their