"The philological peculiarities of the book" constitute
the next ground of the critic's attack on Daniel. "The Hebrew" (he declares)
"is pronounced by the majority of experts to be of a later character than the
time assumed for it." The Aramaic also is marked by idioms of a later period,
familiar to the Palestinian Jews.' And not only are Persian words employed in
the book, but it contains certain Greek words, which, it is said, could not
have been in use in Babylon during the exile.
(The opening passage of
Daniel, from ch. i. i to ch. ii. 3,is written in the sacred Hebrew, and this is
resumed at ch. viii. i and continued to the end. The intervening portion, from
ch. ii: 4 to the end of ch. vii., is written in Chaldee or Aramaic. Professor
Cheyne accepts a suggestion of Lenormant's that the whole book was written in
Hebrew, but that the original of ii. i4 to vii. was lost (Smith's Bible Dict.,
art. "Daniel").
Here is Professor Driver's summary of the argument
under this head :- "The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The
Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian Empire had been well
established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic
permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.c.
332). With our present knowledge, this is as much as the language authorises us
definitely to affirm."
Now, the strength of this case depends on one point.
Any number of argumentative presumptions may be rebutted by opposing evidence;
but here, it is alleged, we have proof which admits of no answer: the Greek
words in Daniel demand a date which destroys the genuineness of the book. Will
the reader believe it that the only foundation for this is the presence of two
words which are alleged to be Greek! Dr. Farrar insists on three, but one of
these (kitliaros) is practically given up.
The story was lately told that
at a church bazaar in Lincoln, held under episcopal patronage, the alarm was
given that a thief was at work, and two of the visitors had lost their purses.
In the excitement which followed, the stolen purses, emptied of course of their
contents, were found in the bishop's pocket. The Higher Criticism would have
handed him over to the police! Do the critics understand the very rudiments of
the science of weighing evidence? The presence of the stolen purses did not
"demand" the conviction of the bishop. Neither should the presence of the Greek
words decide the fate of Daniel. There was no doubt, moreover, as to the
identity of the purses, while Dr. Pusey and others dispute the derivation of
the words. But in the one case as in the other the question would remain, How
did they come to be where they were found?
(The attempt to explain in
this way difficulties of another kind is to force the hypothesis unduly. But
assuming, what there is no reason whatever to doubt, that such a revision took
place, we should expect to find that familiar idioms would be substituted for
others that were deemed archaic, that familiar words would be substituted for
terms which then seemed strange or uncouth to the Jews of Palestine, and that
names like Nebuchadrezzar would be altered to suit the then received
orthography. And the "immense anachronism," if such it were, of using the word
"Chaldeans" as synonymous with the caste of wise men is thus simply and fully
explained.
As regards the name Nebuchadnezzar, it is hard to repress a
feeling of indignation against the dishonesty of the critics. They plainly
imply that this spelling is peculiar to Daniel. The fact is that the name
occurs in nine of the books of the Old Testament, and in all of them, with the
single exception of Ezekiel, it appears in this form. In Jeremiah it is spelt
in both ways, proving clearly that the now received orthography was in use when
the Book of Daniel was written, or else that the spelling of the name
throughout the sacred books is entirely a matter of editing.)
The
Talmud declares that, in common with some other parts of the canon, Daniel was
edited by the men of the Great Synagogue - a college which is supposed to have
been founded by Nehemiah, and which continued until it gave place to the Great
Sanhedrim. May not this be the explanation of all these philological
difficulties? This is not to have recourse to a baseless conjecture in order to
evade well-founded objections: it is merely to give due weight to an
authoritative tradition, the very existence of which isprimafacie proof of its
truth.'
It may be added that in view of recent discoveries no competent
scholar would now reproduce without reserve the argument based on the presence
of foreign words in the book. The fact is, the evolution theory has thrown its
shadow across this controversy. The extraordinary conceit which marks our
much-vaunted age has hitherto led us to assume that, in what has been regarded
as a prehistoric period, men were slowly emerging from barbarism, that written
records were wanting, and that there was no interchange among nations in the
sphere either of scholarship or of trade. It is now known, however, that at
even a far earlier period the nations bordering upon the Mediterranean
possessed a literature and enjoyed a civilisation of no mean excellence.
Merchants and philosophers travelled freely from land to land, carrying with
them their wares and their learning; and to appeal to the Greek words in Daniel
as proof that the book was written after the date of Alexander's conquests, no
longer savours of scholarship. According to Professor Sayce, "there were Greek
colonies on the coast of Palestine in the time of Hezekiah "-a century before
Daniel was born; "and they already enjoyed so much power there that a Greek
usurper was made King of Ashdod. The Tel el-Amarna tablets have enabled us to
carry back a contract between Greece and Canaan to a still earlier period."
Indeed he goes on to indicate the possibility "that there was intercourse and
contact between the Canaanites or Hebrews in Palestine and the Greeks of the
Aegean as far back as the age of Moses."
But this is not all. Will the
reader believe it, I ask again with increasing emphasis and indignation, that
the Greek words, the presence of which is held to "demand" the rejection of the
Book of Daniel, are merely the names of musical instruments? If the instruments
themselves came from Greece it might be assumed that they would carry with them
to Babylon the names by which they were known in the land of their origin. In
no other sphere would men listen to what passes for proof when Scripture is
assailed. In no other sphere would such trifling be tolerated. What would be
thought of a tribunal which convicted a notorious thief of petty larceny on
such evidence as this? The Persian words are of still less account. That the
Persian language was unknown among the cultured classes in Babylon is
incredible. That it was widely known is suggested by the ease with which the
Persian rule was accepted. The position which Daniel attained under that rule
renders it probable in the extreme that he himself was a Persian scholar. And
the date of his closing vision makes it certain that his book was compiled
after that rule was established.
But, it will be answered, the philological
argument does not rest upon points like these; its strength lies in the general
character of the language in which the book is written. The question here
raised, as Dr. Farrar justly says, "involves delicate problems on which an
independent and a valuable opinion can only be offered" by scholars of a
certain class and very few in number.'
But the student will find that their
decision is by no means unanimous or clear. And of course their dicla must be
considered in connection with evidence of other kinds which it is beyond their
province to deal with. Dr. Pusey's magnificent work, in which the whole subject
is handled with the greatest erudition and care, is not dismissed by others
with the contempt which Dr. Farrar evinces for a man who is fired by the
enthusiasm of faith in the Bible. In his judgment the Hebrew of Daniel is "just
what one should expect at the age at which he lived."
(1 Dr. Farrar's
words are, "by the merest handful of living scholars" (p. 17). How many
scholars make a "handful" he does not tell us, and of the two he proceeds to
appeal to, one is not living but dead!)
And one of the highest living
authorities, who has been quoted in this controversy as favouring a late date
for the Book of Daniel, writes in reply to an inquiry I have addressed to him:
"I am now of opinion that it is a very difficult task to settle the age of any
portion of that book from its language." This is also the opinion of Professor
Cheyne, a thoroughly hostile witness. His words are:
"From the Hebrew of the
Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely
drawn."'
And, lastly, appeal may be made to Dr. Farrar himself, who remarks
with signal fairness, but with strange inconsistency, that "Perhaps nothing
certain can be inferred from the philological examination either of the Hebrew
or of the Chaldee portions of the book." And again, still more definitely, he
declares: "The character of the language proves nothing." This testimony,
carrying as it does the exceptional weight which attaches to the admissions of
a prejudiced and hostile witness, might be accepted as decisive of the whole
question. And the fact being what is here stated, the stress laid on grounds
thus admitted to be faulty and inconclusive is proof only of a determination by
fair means or foul to discredit the Book of Daniel.
In his History of
the Criminal Law, Sir James Fitzjames Stephen declares that, as no kind of
evidence more demands the test of cross-examination than that of experts, their
proper place is the witness chair and not the judgment seat. Therefore when
Professor Driver announces "the verdict of the language of Daniel," he goes
entirely outside his proper province. The opinions of the philologist are
entitled to the highest respect, but the "verdict" rests with those who have
practical acquaintance with the science of evidence. Before turning away from
this part of the subject, it may be well to appeal to yet another witness, and
he shall be one whose competency Dr. Farrar acknowledges, and none will
question. His words, moreover, have an interest and value far beyond the
present controversy, and deserve most careful consideration by all who have
been stumbled or misled by the arrogant dogmatism of the so-called Higher
Critics. The following quotation is from An Essay on the Place of
Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature by Professor Margoliouth : "My lamented
colleague, Dr. Edersheim, and I, misled by the very late date assigned by
eminent scholars to the books of the Bible, had worked under the tacit
assumption that the language of Ben-Sira was the language of the Prophets;
whereas in reality he wrote the language of the Rabbis" (p. 6).
(It should
be explained that the Proverbs of Jesus the son of Sirach have come down to us
in a Greek translation, but the character of that translation is such that the
reconstruction of the original Hebrew text is a task within the capacity of
competent scholarship, and a preface to that translation fixes the date of the
book as not later than about B.C. 200. But to resume :-)
"If by 200 B.C.
the whole Rabbinic farrago, with its terms and phrases and idioms and
particles, was developed, . . . then between Ben-Sira and the Books of the Old
Testament there must lie centuries - nay, there must lie, in most cases, the
deep waters of the Captivity, the grave of the old-Hebrew and the old Israel,
and the womb of the new-Hebrew and the new Israel. If Hebrew, like any other
language, has a history, then Isaiah (first or second) must be separated from
Ecclesiastes by a gulf; but a yet greater gulf must yawn between Ecclesiastes
and Ecclesiaticus, for in the interval a whole dictionary has been invented of
philosophical terms such as we traced above, of logical phrases, . . . legal
expressions, . . . nor have the structure and grammar of the language
experienced less serious alteration. . . . It may be, if ever Ben-Sira is
properly restored, . . . that while some students are engaged in bringing down
the date of every chapter in the Bible so late as to leave no room for prophecy
and revelation, others will endeavour to find out how early the professedly
post-exilian books can be put back, so as to account for the divergence between
their awkward middle-Hebrew and the rich and eloquent new-Hebrew of Ben-Sira.
However this may be, hypotheses which place any portion of the classical or
old-Hebrew Scriptures between the middle-Hebrew of Neheniiah and the new-Hebrew
of Ben-Sira will surely require some reconsideration, or at least have to be
harmonised in some way with the history of the language, before they can be
unconditionally accepted."
These weighty words have received striking
confirmation by the recent discovery of the "Cairene Ecclesiasticus," a Hebrew
MS. the genuineness of which is maintained by most of the critics, though
others regard it as merely an attempt to reconstruct the original of Ben-Sira.
According to Dr. Schechter, who has edited the document for the University of
Cambridge, an examination of the language establishes "the conclusion that at
the period in which B.-S. composed his 'Wisdom' classical Hebrew was already a
thing of the past, the real language of the period being that Hebrew idiom
which we know from the Mishnah and cognate Rabbinic literature." And again,
after freely quoting from Ben-Sira: "These specimens are enough to show that in
the times of B.-S. the new-Hebrew dialect had long advanced beyond the
transitory stage known to us from the later Biblical books, and had already
reached, both in respect of grammar and of phraseology, that degree of
development to which the Mishnah bears testimony."
(The Wisdom of Ben-Sira,
etc., by S. Schechter, M.A., Litt.D., etc., and C. Taylor, D.D., Master of St.
John's College, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press, 1899).
As
Professor Driver and his school have unreservedly accepted this MS., it is not
open to them to plead that its genuineness is doubtful. And if Professor
Margoliouth's judgment should ultimately prevail that it is a forgery of late
date - the tenth or eleventh century - it would be still, as an attempt to
reconstruct the Hebrew original, a notable confirmation of the views and
opinions above cited.