« السابقةمتابعة »
the Commentaries of Bevan, pp. 42—54, and Behrmann, pp. xxviii—xxx, xxxiv—xxxvii, and to the monograph of A. Bludau, De Alex. Interpr. Libri Danielis indole critica et hermeneutica (1881)1. Behrmann, also, describes briefly (p. xxxii f., cf. pp. xxxiv—xxxvi) the characteristics of Theodotion's version, of the Peshitta, and of that of Jerome (the Vulgate). There is no Targum to Daniel, just as there is none to Ezra-Nehemiah.
As regards the Massoretic text of Daniel, though it contains, no doubt, a few corrupt or suspicious passages, there are no reasons for questioning that we possess it, on the whole, in a correct form. The LXX., though in isolated passages it may preserve a more original reading, as a whole has no claim whatever to consideration beside it: the liberties which the translator has manifestly taken with his text being such as to deprive the different readings which, if it were a reasonably faithful translation, it might be regarded as presupposing, of all pretensions to originality,-except, indeed, in a comparatively small number of instances, in which they are supported by strong grounds of intrinsic probability. The other versions (which deviate very much less widely from the Heb. and Aram. than the LXX. does) also occasionally preserve a reading better than that of the Massoretic text. The principal cases in which the existing text of Daniel may be corrected from the versions are mentioned in the notes; but it must not be inferred that there are no suspicious or doubtful passages beyond those on which corrections have been noted.
The principal commentaries on Daniel in modern times are those of Hävernick (1832), von Lengerke (1835), Hitzig (1850), Auberlen (1857), Ewald (in vol. iii. of his Propheten, ed. 2, 1868: in the translation, vol. v. 152 ff.), Keil (1869), Zöckler, in Lange's 'Bibelwerk' (1870), Reuss in La Bible, Traduction nouvelle, avec introductions et commentaires, O.T., Part vii. (1879), p. 205 ff., Meinhold, in Strack and
1 On the text of the LXX., both in itself, and in the light of the renderings of the Syro-Hex., see also Löhr's study in the ZATW. 1895, p. 75 ff., 1896, p. 33 ff. A synopsis of the very numerous variations from the Heb. is given (in English), by Dr Pusey, p. 606 ff. (ed. 2, p. 624 ff.).
Zöckler's 'Kurzgef. Komm.' 8th div. p. 257 ff. (1889), Bevan (1892), and Behrmann (1894): the older commentaries, however, including that of Keil (who identifies, for instance, Belshazzar with Evil-merodach), contain much that has been superseded, or shewn to be untenable, by the progress of archaeology. There are also Kamphausen's edition of the Heb. and Aram. text, with critical annotations, in Haupt's Sacred Books of the O.T.' (1896: the part containing the English translation, and exegetical notes, has not at present [July, 1900] appeared); and Marti's translation in Kautzsch's Die Heilige Schrift des AT.s (1894), with brief critical notes (in the Beilagen,' pp. 87— 89). Dean Farrar's Commentary, in the 'Expositor's Bible' (1895), contains much that is helpful and suggestive. J. D. Prince's Commentary (London and New York, 1899) is especially rich in Assyriological information.
Among ancient commentaries, a special value attaches to that of Jerome. Porphyry, a learned and able neo-Platonist, the most distinguished pupil of Plotinus (see the art. PORPHYRY in the Dict. of Christian Biography), had written a treatise (not now extant) in which he sought to shew that the historical survey in Dan. xi. must have been written after the events referred to had taken place; and the information collected by him from Greek historians, whose works are now lost, and preserved to us by Jerome, often throws a welcome light on passages of this chapter, which must otherwise have remained obscure1. There are also many other points on which this, like the other commentaries of the same most learned and industrious Biblical scholar, contains much that is still valuable, and should not be neglected by the student.
On the question of the date of the Book of Daniel, the chief advocates of the traditional view have been Hengstenberg in vol. i. of his Beiträge zur Einl. ins alte Test., 1831 (cf. the discussion of ix. 24-27 in his Christologie des AT.s, 1854-7, iii. 83-235 in Clark's translation); Hävernick in his Comm. (1832), his Neue kritische Untersuchungen, 1838 (a reply to von Lengerke), and his Einleitung, 11. ii. (1844), p. 435 ff.; Auberlen; Keil in his Comm. (1869), and his Einleitung, ed. 3, 1873, §§ 131-7; E. B. Pusey in the volume of lectures entitled Daniel the Prophet, 1864 (extremely learned and
1 Jerome, though he upheld himself the interpretation of Dan. xi. 36-45 current at the time (see below, p. 193), added, however, the notable and far-sighted words, Pone haec dici de Antiocho, quid nocet religioni nostrae?"
thorough)1: the same view is also adopted by J. M. Fuller in the 'Speaker's Commentary,' and by J. E. H. Thomson in the 'Pulpit Commentary' (1897),—who, however, like Zöckler (pp. v, 166, 176, 199 f.), rejects most, if not all, of ch. xi. as an interpolation (pp. iv, vii, xviii, 287), and evades many other difficulties which the book presents by the hypothesis that ‘the text is in a very bad state, and has been subjected to various interpolations and alterations' (p. 40b); see also H. Deane, Daniel, his life and times, in the 'Men of the Bible' series (1888). The most complete treatment of the question from the opposite standpoint is that of Kuenen in his Hist.-crit. Onderzoek, Part ii. (1889), §§ 87-92 (in the German translation, the Einleitung, ii. p. 430 ff.): see also Bleek's classical exegetical study, 'The Messianic prophecies in the Book of Daniel,' in the Jahrb. für Deutsche Theologie, 1860, pp. 47—101 (discusses ix. 24-27 very fully; and shews in particular that the acknowledged fact that ch. viii. and xi. 21—35 refer to Ant. Ep., involves, on exegetical grounds, the conclusion that chs. ii., vii., ix., xi. 36-xii., culminate in references to the same age); and Kamphausen's brochure, Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Geschichtsforschung (1893).
Books or monographs dealing with special points are referred to, as occasion requires, in the notes. The most thorough grammar of the Biblical Aramaic is Kautzsch's Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram. (1884); there are shorter grammars by Marti (Kurzgefasste Grammatik der Bibl.Aram. Sprache, 1896), and Strack (Abriss des Bibl.-Aram., ed. 2, 1897). The Commentaries most useful philologically are those of Bevan, Behrmann, and Prince.
The view of the date of the Book of Daniel adopted in the present volume is that accepted by the most moderate and reasonable of recent critics, as Delitzsch (in Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie2, vol. iii. (1878), s.v.), Riehm, Einleitung (1890), ii. 292 ff., König, Einleitung (1893), §§ 78-9, Kamphausen, op. cit., and in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, Strack, Einleitunga (1895), § 63, Schürer2, ii. 613 ff. (Engl. tr. II. iii. p. 49 ff.), C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy (1886), p. 411 f., Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 215 ff., Dillmann, A. T. Theol. (1895), p. 522 f., Ottley, Bampton Lectures, 1897, p. 331 f., Hebrew Prophets (1898), pp. 15, 103 ff., E. L. Curtis in Hastings' Dict. of the Bible, s.v.,
1 The references are to ed. 1: in ed. 2 (1868), after p. 44, the pagination gradually rises till p. 564 in ed. r = p. 568 in ed. 2.
&c. The position is one of those which are sometimes yielded with reluctance, especially by those who have been brought up in the older view, and who can recollect the strenuousness and firm conviction with which that view was contended for by the apologists of a former generation. But the wider knowledge of antiquity which we now possess has shewn that many opinions relating to the Old Testament, not less than to the literature and history of other ancient nations, which were once generally accepted, can no longer be maintained; and the apologist, where, in a matter affecting him, he finds this to be the case, must change his ground. The traditional view of the authorship of the Book of Daniel, it must be remembered, is no article of the Christian faith; and the impossibility of defending it by arguments which will carry general conviction, deprives it of the apologetic value which it was once regarded as possessing.
As stated above (p. xxii), it is argued by Meinhold that the Book of Daniel is of composite authorship, ii. 4o—vi. being considerably earlier in origin than the rest of the Book; but this view has not otherwise found supporters. Another theory of the composite character of the book is developed by G. A. Barton in the Journ. of Biblical Literature, 1898, p. 62 ff. The unity of the Book has also been doubted, on the conservative side, and with the object, at the same time, of explaining its bilingual character, by Mr Thomson: the Book, he supposes (p. vii), ‘originally floated about in separate little tractates, some relating incidents, others visions; some in Aramaic, some in Hebrew; and in a somewhat later age an editor collected them together, and added a prologue.' It is true, there are features in the Book which might seem to suggest that the author was not throughout the same; but the question is, whether they are decisive, especially in view of the many marks of unity which link the different parts of the Book together. The reader who is interested in the subject may consult further Budde's criticism of Meinhold in the Theol. Lit.-zeitung, 29 Dec. 1888; and von Gall, Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel (1895), with J. W. Rothstein's reviews of Behrmann's Comm. and of this work in the Deutsche Litt.-zeitung, 28 Nov. and 26 Dec. 1896: comp. also Kamphausen in the Encycl. Biblica, s.v., § 4.
It is possible that, as Gunkel has argued (Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, 1895, pp. 323—335), the imagery of the four beasts in Dan. vii. is in part suggested by traditional reminiscences of the old Babylonian cosmogonic epic: but the fact, in so far as it is true (for it is certainly overstated by Gunkel), possesses only an antiquarian
interest; it has no bearing upon the sense in which the author applied his materials, or upon the exegesis of the vision (cf. Wellhausen, Skizzen, vi. 232-5). Some verbal parallels between Dan. i.-vi. and the 'Story of Aḥikar1,' have suggested also the inference that the author of Dan. was perhaps acquainted with the last-named work: see J. Rendel Harris, The Story of Aḥikar (Camb. 1898), pp. lvii—lx, lxxxiii, 25, 72, 73, 87, 101, and Barton, Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang., July 1900, p. 242 ff.
1 The 'Achiacharus' of Tob. i. 21, 22, ii. 10, xi. 18, xiv. 10 (cf. Harris, p. xxviii). The story is amidrash,' or moralizing narrative, describing how Ahikar, a vizier of Sennacherib, being accused falsely of treason, was cast into a dungeon, and how afterwards he was delivered, and his accuser consigned to the dungeon in his stead (cf. Tob. xiv. 10).