"The existence of violent errors as to matters with which
a contemporary must have been familiar, at once refutes all pretence of
historic authenticity in a book professing to have been written by an author in
the days and country which he describes." "By no possibility could the book
have been written in the days of the Babylonian exile." Thus it is that Dean
Farrar disposes of the Book of Daniel. Such dogmatism, while it will surprise
and distress the thoughtful and well-informed, will no doubt overwhelm the
simple folk whom this volume of the Expositor's Bible is presumably intended to
enlighten.
Indeed, the writer betrays throughout his belief that, from
Bacon to Pusey, all who have accepted the Book of Daniel as authentic have been
wanting either in honesty or intelligence. And it suggests that he himself is
one of a line of scholars who, as the result of independent inquiry, are agreed
in rejecting it. The discovery of the hidden records of the court of Babylon
cannot be much longer deferred, and when these shall have been brought to light
we shall learn, perchance, on which side the folly lies - that of the believers
or of the critics. And while an ignorant public is easily imposed upon by a
parade of seeming scholarship, no one who is versed in the Daniel controversy
can fail to recognise that fair and independent inquiry is absolutely
wanting.
Porphyry the Pagan it was who set the ball rolling long ago. After
resting for centuries it was again put in motion by the rationalists. And now
that the fashion has set towards scepticism, and "Higher Criticism" is supposed
to denote higher culture, critic follows critic, like sheep through a gap. Here
in this last contribution to the controversy the writer falls into line, wholly
unconscious that the "violent errors" he pillories have an existence only in
the ignorance of those who denounce them. And we seek in vain for a single page
that gives proof of fair and unbiassed inquiry.
But the critic will tell us
that the time for inquiry is past, for the question is no longer open. "There
is no shadow of doubt on the subject left in the minds of such scholars as
Driver, Cheyne, Sanday, Bevan, and Robertson Smith." This list of names is
intended as a climax to the pretentious periods which precede it, but this
grouping together of the living and the dead makes it savour rather of
anti-climax. Do these writers monopolise the scholarship of England? or does
the list represent the authorities hostile to the Book of Daniel?
It may
seem ungracious to add that not one of these distinguished men has ever given
proof of fitness for an inquiry so difficult and complex. And as for the
treatise here under review, every part of it gives proof of absolute unfitness
for the task. It is easy to convict an accused person if all his witnesses are
put out of court and refused a hearing, and his own words and acts are
misrepresented and distorted. Yet such is the treatment here accorded to the
Book of Daniel. Not one of the champions of faith is allowed a hearing, and the
exegesis offered of the prophetic portions of the book would be denounced as a
mere travesty by every intelligent student of prophecy. In not a few instances,
indeed, the transparent error and folly of the critic's scheme will be clear
even to the ordinary reader.
Take the Seventy Weeks as an example. In
adopting what he terms "the Antiochian hypothesis" of the sceptics, the critic
is confronted by the fact that "it does not accurately correspond with
ascertainable dates." "It is true," he says, "that from B.C. 588 to B.C. 164
only gives us 424 years, instead of 490 years." But this difficulty he disposes
of by declaring that "precise computation is nowhere prevalent in the sacred
books." And he adds, "to such purely mundane and secondary matters as close
reckoning of dates the Jewish writers show themselves manifestly indifferent."
No statement could well be more unwarrantable. A "close reckoning of dates" is
almost a speciality of "Jewish writers." No other writings can compare with
theirs in this respect. But let us hear what the critic has to urge.
"That
there were differences of computation," he remarks, "as regards Jeremiah's
seventy years, even in the age of the exile, is sufficiently shown by the
different views as to their termination taken by the Chronicler (2 Chron.
xxxvi. 22), who fixes it B.C. 536, and by Zechariah (Zech. i. i 2), who fixes
it about B.C. 519." This is his only appeal to Scripture, and, as I have
already shown, it is but an ignorant blunder, arising from confounding the
different eras of the Servitude, the Captivity, and the Desolations. Dr. Farrar
next appeals to "exactly similar mistakes of reckoning" in Josephus, and he
enumerates the following
"1. In his Jewish Wars (VI. iv. 8) he says that
there were 639 years between the second year of Cyrus and the destruction of
the Temple by Titus (A.D. 70). Here is an error of more than 30 years.
"2.
In his Antiquities (XX. x.) he says that there were 434 years between the
return from the Captivity (B.C. 536) and the reign of Antiochus Eupator (B.c.
164-162). Here is an error of more than 60 years.
"3. In his Antiquities,
XIII. xi. I, he reckons 481 years between the return from the Captivity and the
time of Aristobulus (B.C. 105-104). Here is an error of some 50 years.
These "mistakes" will repay a careful scrutiny. In the passage first cited,
Josephus reckons the period between the foundation of the first temple by
Solomon and its destruction by Titus as 1130 years 7 months and 15 days. "And
from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai, in the second year of
Cyrus the king," the interval was 639 years and 45 days. This, be it remarked,
is given as proof that "precise computation" is nowhere to be looked for in
Jewish writers! The enumeration of the very days, however, renders it certain
that Josephus had before him chronological tables of absolute precision. But in
computing the second era above mentioned, he refers to the prophet Haggai, who,
with Zechariah, promoted the building of the second temple in the second year
of Darius Hystaspis. As this historian speaks elsewhere of 'Artaxerxes as
Cyrus,' so here he calls Darius by that title. The period, therefore, was
(according to our chronology) from B.C. 520 to A.D. 70 - that is, 589 years -
that is, about fifty years less than Josephus reckons. In Dr. Farrar's third
example, this same excess of about fifty years again appears; and if in his
second example we substitute 424 years for the doubtful reading of 434 years,
we reach a precisely similar result.
What are we to conclude from these
facts? Not that the ancient Jews were careless or indifferent in regard to
chronology, which would be flagrantly untrue; but that their chronological
tables, though framed with absolute precision, were marked by errors which
amounted to an excess of some fifty years in the very period of which the era
of the seventy weeks must be assigned.
Here, then, we have a solution which
is definite and adequate of the only serious objection which the critic can
urge against the application of this prophecy to Messiah. Of that application
Dr. Farrar writes :- "It is finally discredited by the fact that neither our
Lord, nor His apostles, nor any of the earliest Christian writers, once
appealed to the evidence of this prophecy, which, on the principles of
Hengstenberg and Dr. Pusey, would have been so decisive! If such a proof lay
ready to their hand - a proof definite and chronological - why should they have
deliberately passed it over?"
The answer is full and clear, that any such
appeal would have been discredited, and any such proof refuted, by reference to
what (as Josephus shows us) was the received chronology of the age they lived
in. But what possible excuse can be made for those who, with the full light
that history now throws upon the sacred page, not only reject its teaching, but
use their utmost ingenuity to darken and distort it? "From the decree to
restore Jerusalem unto the Anointed One (or 'the Messiah '), the Prince "-
this, to quote Dr. Farrar's own words, describes the era here in view. There is
no question that the Holy City was restored. There is no question that its
restoration was in pursuance of a decree of Artaxerxes I. The date of that
decree is known. From that date unto "the Messiah, the Prince," was exactly the
period specified in the prophecy.'
But Dr. Farrar will tell us that the
real epoch was not the decree to restore Jerusalem, but the catastrophe by
which Jerusalem was laid in ruins. "It is obvious," be says, after enumerating
"the views of the Rabbis and Fathers," "that not one of them accords with the
allusions of the narrative and prayer, except that which makes the destruction
of the Temple the terminus a quo." This sort of talk is bad enough with those
who seek to adapt divine prophecy to what they suppose to be the facts it
refers to. But the suggestion here is that a holy and gifted Chasid, writing in
B.C. 164, with the open page of history before him, described the destruction
of Jerusalem as "a decree to restore Jerusalem," and then described a period of
424 years as 490 years! And at the close of the nineteenth century of the
Christian era, these puerilities of the sceptics are solemnly reproduced by the
Dean of Canterbury for the enlightenment of Christian England! To escape from a
difficulty by taking refuge in an absurdity is like committing suicide in order
to escape from danger.
Other writers tell us that the era of the seventy
weeks dated from the divine promise recorded in Jeremiah XX1X. 10.1 But though
this view is free from the charge of absurdity it will not bear scrutiny. That
was not a "commandment" to build Jerusalem, but merely a promise of future
restoration. All these theories, moreover, savour of perverseness and casuistry
in presence of the fact that Scripture records so definitely the "commandment"
in pursuance of which it was in fact rebuilt.
Neither was it without
significance that the prophetic period dated from the restoration under
Nehemiah. The era of the Servitude had ended with the accession of Cyrus, and
the seventy years of the Desolations had already expired in the second year of
Darius. But the Jews were still without a constitution or a polity. In a word,
their condition was then much what it is today. It was the decree of the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes which restored the national autonomy of Judah.
And a precedent which is startling in its definiteness may be found to
justify the belief that such an era would not begin while the existence of
Judah as a nation was in abeyance. I allude to the 480 years of i Kings vi. I,
computed from the Exodus to the Temple. If a little of the time and energy
which the critics have expended in denouncing that passage as a forgery or a
blunder had been devoted to searching for its hidden meaning, their labours
might perchance have been rewarded. That the chronology of the period was
correctly known is plain from the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, which enables
us to reckon the very same era as 573 years. How then can this seeming error of
93 years be accounted for? It is precisely the sum of the several eras of the
Servitudes.The inference therefore is clear that “the 480th year”
means the 480th year of national life and national responsibilities. And if
this principle applied to an era apparently historical, we may
a priori
be prepared to find that it governs an era which is mystic and prophetic.
(Acts xiii. i8—21 gives 40 years in the wilderness, 450 years under
the Judges, and 40 years for the reign of Saul. To which must be added the 40
years of David’s reign, and the first three years of Solomon, for it was
in his fourth year that he began to build the Temple. The servitudes were to
Mesopotamia for 8 years, to Moab for 18 years, to Canaan for 20 years, to
Midian for 7 years, and to the Philistines for 40 years. See Judges iii. 8, 14;
iv. 2, 3; vi. I; xiii. I. But 8+58+20+7+40 years are precisely equal to 93
years. To believe that this is a mere coincidence would involve an undue strain
upon our faith.
Acts xiii. 20 is one of the very many passages where the
New Testament Revisers have corrupted the text through neglect of the
well-known principles by which experts are guided in dealing with conflicting
evidence. It is certain that neither the apostle said, nor the evangelist
wrote, that Israel’s enjoyment of the land was limited to 450 years, or
that 450 years elapsed before the era of the Judges. The text adopted by R.V.
is therefore clearly wrong. Dean Alford regards it "as an attempt at correcting
the difficult chronology of the verse" and he adds, "taking the words as they
stand, no other sense can be given to them than that the time of the Judges
lasted 450 years." That is, as he explains, not that the Judges ruled for 450
years—in which case the accusative would be used, as in verse i8—but,
as the use of the dative implies, that the period until Saul, characterised by
the rule of the Judges, lasted 450 years. The objection that I omit the
servitude of Judges x. 7, 8 is met by a reference to the R.V. The punctuation
of the passage in Bagster's Bible perverts the sense. That servitude affected
only the tribes beyond Jordan.)