Concerning the statement found in Daniel 1:1f relative to Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem and his taking some of the vessels of the temple in the third year of Jehoiakim to Babylon, Dr. Driver makes the following pronouncement:

"That Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, and carried away some of the sacred vessels in 'the third year of Jehoiakim' (Dan. 1, 1f.), though it cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved, is highly improbable; not only is the book of Kings silent, but Jeremiah in the following year (c.25, &c., see v. 1) speaks of the Chaldeans in a manner which appears distinctly to imply that their arms had not yet been seen in Judah."

Following this statement Dr. Wilson, in a masterly and scholarly way, shows that this argument is based upon a pure assumption. After having marshaled the facts, he summarizes his conclusions in the following statements:

"1. That Kings, Chronicles, Berosus, Josephus, and Daniel all affirm that Nebuchadnezzar did come up against Jerusalm in the days of Jehoiakim.
"2. That Chronicles, Daniel, Berosus, and Josephus unite in saying that Nebuchadnezzar carried many captives from Judea to Babylon in the reign of Jehoiakim.
"3. That Berosus supports the statement of Daniel with regard to the carrying away of some of the vessels of the house of the Lord by saying that Nebuchadnezzar brought spoils from Judea which were put in the temple of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon.
"4. That Berosus supports Daniel in declaring an expedition against Jerusalem to have occurred before the death of Nabopolassar.
"5. That since Nabopolassar died while Nebuchadnezzar was in the midst of his expedition against Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar may have been king de jure before he came up against Jerusalem; for it would take the news of the death of Nabopolassar several weeks to reach Jerusalem, and in those weeks there would have been abundance of time for Nebuchadnezzar to have captured Jerusalem, especially if Jehoiakim surrendered at this time without fighting or after a brief siege, as Josephus says that he did in his eleventh year.
"6. That the book of Jeremiah is silent with regard to all of these events. It does not say that Nebuchadnezzar did not come up to Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim. It simply says nothing about it. Why it says nothing about it we do not know. The expedition or expeditions may have been mentioned in 'the many like words' recorded by Baruch (Jer. xxxvi, 32), which have not been preserved for us.
"7. That finally, the statement of Daniel 1:1-3, that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim and carried captive to Babylon certain of the nobility, and some of the vessels of the house of the Lord, stands absolutely unimpugned by any testimony to be produced from any reliable source of information."

An objection is brought against Daniel because he speaks of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, and his coming against Jerusalem to war in the third year of Jehoiakim. It is a well-known fact that Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, was king of Babylon that year. The objection against the record of Daniel has been brought by Professor Bertholdt in the following words:

"Jeremiah XXV, (1) says, that Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then is it possible, that according to the composer of this biographical sketch of Daniel, the King Nebuchadnezzar could already in the third year of Jehoiakim have besieged and taken Jerusalem?"

Dr. Dick Wilson discusses this question most thoroughly and draws the following cogent and conclusive deduction:

"The above discussion has, we think, made it clear that a man who was not actually reigning at the time to which some event in his life is afterwards referred might rightly be called king by a writer who was describing that event after the man had really been clothed with the royal dignity. It has shown also that a man who was never king in the sense of having himself reigned de facto, or de jure, might be called king by way of distinction or honor because he was in some way related to the reigning king. Lastly, it is shown that the word used for king by the ancient writers is to be defined not by the modern usus loquendi, nor by the conception which one may have formed from present day usage, but in harmony with the manner in which the word was employed in antiquity and in the particular language to which the term, by us translated 'king,' belonged. Judged by these three rules there is no good reason why the author of Daniel may not properly and justly have called Nebuchadnezzar 'the king of Babylon,' when referring to an event in his life that happened before he had actually ascended the throne of his father."

Another objection brought against Daniel is his statements relative to Belshazzar's being king of Babylon when it was captured by the Medes and the Persians. Statements from some of the leading authorities of the critical school present the situation clearly. Dr. Wilson gives three, which I wish to note:

"1. 'To represent that the king in whose reign Babylon was captured and the Chaldean empire destroyed was named Belshazzar and that he was a son of Nebuchadnezzar (Ch. V) is to contradict all the other assured witnesses of the Old Testament.
"2. 'Belshazzar is represented as "king of Babylon." In point of fact Nabunaid was the last king of Babylon. Belshazzar may have distinguished himself, perhaps more than his father Nabunaid (Nabonidus), at the time when Babylon passed into the power of the Persians; and hence, in the recollections of a later age he may have been pictured as its last king; but he was not styled "king" by his contemporaries (cf. Schrader on Dan. v. 1, 2).'
"3. 'Belshazzar never became king in his father's place.

After arguing the question pro and con and bringing absolute and indisputable evidence to bear upon the question, Dr. Wilson draws the following conclusion:

"The evidence given above shows that the author of Daniel does not contradict any 'other assured witnesses of the Old Testament,' when he represents Belshazzar as the king of Babylon under whom the citadel was taken. All that the book of Daniel necessarily implies when it says that Belshazzar was king of Babylon is that he was de facto king of the city after Nabunaid was taken prisoner. The evidence shows, also, that Belshazzar may have been called king of Babylon without ever having become king in his father's place over the empire of Babylonia; for in the last four months before the citadel was taken and after his father had surrendered, he was the only king whom the last defenders of Babylon could have acknowledged. His first year as king of Babylon is all that the book of Daniel mentions. He may have been king of the Chaldeans, or Chaldean king, for, many years before, through the capture of his father Nabunaid by the Persians, he became king of Babylon.

"Thus 'the recollections of a late age,' as they are presented in Daniel, will agree exactly with what the monuments tell us about the situation at the time when Babylon was taken by the Medes and Persians. Further, it has been shown by the evidence that a son of a king might be called a king; that Belshazzar may have been king at the same time that his father was; that there may have been two persons called king of Babylon at the same time; that a man might have been king of the Chaldeans, or king both of Babylon and of the Chaldeans; and that the years of the reign of a monarch might be dated in one way for his rule over one country, or people, and in another way for his rule over a second country, or people. Lastly, it has been shown that Belshazzar may legally have had two fathers; and that hence it is no objection to the accuracy of Daniel that he is called by him the son of Nebuchadnezzar, while the monuments call him the son of Nabunaid.

"In short, the evidence fails to show that any of the above-named assumptions of the critics with regard to him are true."

The historicity of Daniel has been questioned on the ground that the Biblical account does not square with the known historical facts. Dr. Wilson states the objection in the following words:

"Among other objections it is asserted, that 'the author of Daniel had an entirely false idea regarding the fall of Babylon under the Semitic dynasty. He evidently thought that Darius the Mede preceded Cyrus the Persian.' The author of Daniel 'makes a Median ruler receive Babylon after the overthrow, of the native dynasty, and then mentions later the historical Cyrus. We may suppose that the biblical writer believed that Cyrus succeeded to the empire of Babylon on the death of the Median Darius.' " Prince Commentary on Daniel, p. 54.

After a thorough discussion of every phase of the question, Dr Wilson draws the following conclusion, which is unanswerable:

"From the above evidence it is clear that the author of Daniel does not state, nor even intimate, that Cyrus succeeded Darius the Mede in the empire of Babylon. On the contrary, he indicates that Darius the Mede received from Cyrus his overlord the kingdom of Belshazzar the Chaldean which at best constituted but a small portion of the empire of the Persians. The monumental evidence shows the possibility of 120 satraps being installed in the province of Babylonia alone. This evidence shows, also, that dual datings were common among the ancient nations, and that hence Cyrus and Darius the Mede may have been reigning at the same time, one as overlord and the other as sub-king, or viceroy. It is pure conjecture to suppose that the author of Daniel 'evidently thought that Darius the Mede preceded Cyrus the Persian,' or that he 'believed that Cyrus succeeded to the empire of Babylon on the death of the Median Darius,' rather than on its conquest from Nabunaid and Belshazzar."

One of the greatest objections brought against the historicity of Daniel is that the author was confused concerning Darius the Mede and the Persian kings. The issue as stated by outstanding authorities is as follows:

"When we find him (i.e., Daniel) attributing to the Persian empire a total of only four kings (Dan xi, 2; comp. also vii, 6), this clearly arises from the fact that by accident the names of only four Persian kings are mentioned in the O.T.; when we find that he makes the fourth of these exceedingly rich, provoke a mighty war against Greece, and in triumphant repulse of this attack by the Greek king Alexander the Great to be defeated and dethroned--it is clear that the author has confused Xerxes and Darius Hystaspes by making them one and the same person, and mistaken the latter for Darius Codomannus.

"In 6:1, the temptation to suspect a confusion (of Darius the Mede) with Darius Hystaspes--who actually organized the Persian empire into 'satrapies' though much fewer than 120--is strong. Tradition, it can hardly be doubted, has here confused persons and events in reality distinct.

" 'Darius the Mede' must be a reflection into the past of Darius Hystaspes, father--not son--of Xerxes, who had to reconquer Babylon in B.C. 521 and again in 515, and who established the system of satrapies, combined not impossibly, with indistinct recollections of Gubaru (or Ugbaru), who first occupied Babylon in Cyrus' behalf, and who, in appointing governors there, appears to have acted as Cyrus' deputy."

A careful analysis of these statements shows that many things are assumed by these writers and upon the basis of these presuppositions certain hasty and unwarranted deductions are made.

Dr. Wilson presents all the facts, now known, in a most scholarly and cogent manner in five chapters of the first volume Studies in the Book of Daniel. The question is such an intricate one and so very abstract that I do not attempt to call attention to any of its ramifications. The reader is referred to this book for information. I only give Dr. Wilson's conclusion, which is sufficient.

"In the discussions of the last five chapters, we have attempted to show that the author of Daniel does not attribute to the Persian empire a total of only four kings; that it is scarcely possible that the author of Daniel, if he wrote after the time of Alexander the Great, can have thought that this empire had only four kings; that it is not proven that only four kings of Persia are mentioned in the Old Testament outside of Daniel; that Darius the Mede cannot have been a reflection of Darius Hystaspes; that the author of Daniel has not confused Darius Hystaspes and Xerxes his son; that he does not mistake Darius Hystaspes for Darius Codomannus; and that he does not state that the war of the fourth king of Persia against Greece was repulsed by Alexander the Great. We leave the reader to judge whether we have succeeded in our attempt."

The Scripture account of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity has given the critics quite a bit of trouble. They inform us that this is an incredible account. One writer states that "Nebuchadnezzar's madness during seven years cannot be taken literally." Another delivers himself thus: "No proof is needed to show the incredibility attaching to the supposed incapacity of this king for governing, owing to madness, for the space of seven years." Such statements could be multiplied. They are simply based upon assumptions. Six of these leading presuppositions are examined by Dr. Wilson, who draws the following conclusion:

"From the above discussion it is evident that the madness of Nebuchadnezzar may be taken literally; that he may have been mad for seven years, or times; and that proof is needed to show the incredibility alleged as attaching to his supposed incapacity for governing."

One of the most serious objections brought against the historicity and genuineness of Daniel is based upon the position of the book in the Canon of the Hebrew text. I herewith present the accusations as brought by the opposition:

"The first alleged proof of the late date of Daniel is 'the position of the Book in the Jewish Canon, not among the prophets, but in the miscellaneous collection of writings called the Hagiographa, and among the latest of these, in proximity to Esther. Though little definite is known respecting the formation of the Canon, the division known as the "Prophets" was doubtless formed prior to the Hagiographa; and had the Book of Daniel existed at the time, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have ranked as the work of a prophet, and have been included among the former.'"

"In the Hebrew Scriptures 'Daniel has never occupied a place among the prophetical Books, but is included in the third collection of sacred writings, called the Kethubim or Hagiographa. Of the history of the Jewish Canon very little is known with certainty, but there is every reason to believe that the collection of Prophetical Books, from which lessons were read in the Synagogue, was definitely closed sometime before the Hagiographa, of which the greater part had no place in the public services. That the collection of prophetical Books cannot have been completed till sometime after the Exile is obvious, and on the supposition that Daniel was then known to the Jews the exclusion of this is wholly inexplicable.'"

" 'The place of the Book of Daniel among the Hagiographa favors also its late composition. If it had been written during the Exile, notwithstanding its apocalyptic character, it naturally would have been placed among the Prophets.'"

" 'Not until the time of the Lxx (which, moreover, has treated the text of Daniel in a very arbitrary fashion) does it find a place, after Ezekiel, as the fourth of the great prophets, and thus it comes to pass that once in the New Testament Daniel is designated as a prophet.'"

" 'The position of the book among the Hagiographa instead of among the Prophetical works would seem to indicate that it must have been introduced after the closing of the Prophetical Canon.... The natural explanation regarding the position of the Book of Daniel is that the work could not have been in existence at the time of the completion of the second part of the Canon, as otherwise, the collectors of the prophetical writings, who in their care did not neglect even the parable of Jonah, would hardly have ignored the record of such a great prophet as Daniel is represented to be'"

"Among 'objective reasons of the utmost weight, which render the view of its non-genuineness necessary,' Cornill mentions 'the position of the book in the Hebrew Canon where it is inserted, not among the prophets but in the third division of the canon, the so-called Hagiographa. If it were the work of a prophet of the time of Cyrus, no reason would be evident why there should be withheld from it a designation which was not denied to a Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi--nay, even to a Jonah.'"

" 'In the Hebrew Canon, Daniel is not placed among the Prophets but in the Hagiographa, the latest section of the Canon; although Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi who were later than the time at which Daniel is described as living, are placed among the Prophets. Either the Jews did not regard the book as prophetical, or it was considerably later than Malachi, c. 444.'"

Many other statements might be produced which present various aspects of the accusations, but these are sufficient. They give the unacquainted reader some idea of the controversy.

Dr. Wilson, in his thorough and scholarly manner, produces evidence--absolute, concrete facts--in overthrowing the charges and assumptions that are brought against the book of Daniel from this standpoint. In a most masterly manner he summarizes the only conclusion to which an unbiased mind can come, when he looks at all the data. Ponder these telling facts:

"The evidence given above and its discussion permit only of the following conclusions:
"1. That the position of a book in the Hebrew canon was not determined by the time at which it was written.
"2. That the position of a book in the list of the Mishna, or of the Hebrew manuscripts, versions, and editions, does not determine the time at which it was admitted to the Canon.
"3. That all the earlier Hebrew sources, and all the Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Armenian sources put Daniel among the Prophets.
"4. That Daniel's genuineness, or its right to be in the Canon, was never disputed by the ancient Jews or Christians except possibly the Aramaic portions.
"5. That there is no external evidence, direct or indirect, except the argument from the silence of Ecclesiasticus, that Daniel was not composed till the time of the Maccabees.
"6. That the silence of Ecclesiasticus is more than offset by the silence of I and II Maccabees.
"7. That there is no direct evidence of the existence of a three-fold division earlier than the prologue of Jesus ben Sira, written in 132 B.C.
"8. That the absence of any selection from Daniel in the Haphtaroth does not prove that the book of Daniel was not in existence, or acknowledged as canonical, when the Haphtaroth were chosen.
"9. That Daniel was always considered by Josephus, and by the writers of the New Testament, to be a prophet, and that his book was placed by the same authorities among the prophetical books.
"10. That all the early Hebrew authorities which place Daniel among the prophets, agree with the Mishna in holding to a three-fold division of the Canon.
"11. That the testimony that we possess does not show that the second part of the Canon was closed before the books of the third part were all written.
"12. That the assumption that the division of the Hebrew Canon called the Prophets in our present editions of the Hebrew Bible was doubtless formed prior to the Hagiographa, is unfounded, inasmuch as there is no evidence that this division as it is now made was in existence before the second century A.D.
"13. That all witnesses agree in putting the Law first; and that Melito and Leontius alone change the order of the books of the Law, in that they put Numbers before Leviticus.
"14. That not one of the ancient witnesses puts the five Megilloth together, not even the Talmud.
"15. That in nearly all the lists, the five poetical books are placed together.
"16. That the only great difference of order between Philo, Luke, and Josephus, representing the earliest Hebrew arrangement, and the early Christian lists arises from the fact that the former put the poetical books at the end, whereas the latter usually place them before the sixteen books of the Prophets.
"17. That the books of the Old Testament Canon were never authoritatively and fixedly arranged in any specific order, either by the Jews, or by the Christians.
"18. That the order has nothing to do with the canonicity, nor necessarily even with the date of a book.
"19. That length, supposed authorship, subject-matter, and convenience as well as the material upon which a book was written, were the potent factors in all the ancient arrangements of the books.
"20. That since the modern Jews have changed the position of Ruth, Lamentations, and Esther, to suit their convenience in the public service there is every reason to believe that their so-called book of the Prophets was collected together into one for the same reason; and that the omission of Daniel from this collection had nothing to do either with its age or canonicity, but simply with the fact that it was not employed in these public services.
"20a. That the Haphtaroth and the eight prophetical books never are found in the MSS.
"21. That all the testimony that the ancient Jewish and Christian sources give, bearing upon the time of the composition of the Old Testament books, is consentient in granting the claims of the books themselves as to their historicity, genuineness, and authority.
"22. That the determining factor in the canonization of a book was its supposed age and author, its agreement with the Law, and its approval by the prophets.
"23. That in accordance with these rules Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Maccabees and other apocryphal books on the one hand, and on the other hand the pseudepigraphical books of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Jubilees, and the XII Patriarchs, were rejected from the Canon.
"24. That those who rely upon documentary evidence, cannot escape the conclusion that the indictment against the book of Daniel on the ground that it is not among the Prophets is false; and that in so far as the age and canonicity of the book of Daniel are assailed on the ground of its position in the Canon, the old view stands approved.

Statements from two of the critics will set forth the issues before us:

"Jesus the son of Sirach (writing c. 200 B.C.), in his enumeration of Israelitish worthies, chaps. XLIV-L, though he mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and (collectively) the Twelve Minor Prophets, is silent as to Daniel."--Driver, Literature of the Old Testament, p. 498.

"The silence of Jesus Sirach, (Ecclesiasticus) concerning Daniel seems to show that the prophet was unknown to that late writer who, in his list of celebrated men (chap. xlix) makes no mention of Daniel, but passes from Jeremiah to Ezekiel and then to the twelve Minor Prophets and Zerubbabel. If Daniel had been known to Jesus Sirach, we would certainly expect to find his name in this list, probably between Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Again the only explanation seems to be that the Book of Daniel was not known to Sirach who lived and wrote between 200 and 180 B.C. Had so celebrated a person as Daniel been known, he could hardly have escaped mention in such a complete list of Israel's leading spirits. Hengstengberg remarked that Ezra and Mordecai were also left unmentioned, but the case is not parallel. Daniel is represented in the work attributed to him as a great prophet, while Ezra appears in the Book bearing his name as nothing more than a rather prominent priest and scholar."--Prince, Commentary on Daniel, p. 16f.

When one enters the realm of the reasons for another's pursuing a certain course, he has a most difficult task. In fact, it is very hard for us sometimes to analyze the real causes motivating our own actions. The fact that one writer does not mention another is no evidence that he does not know of his existence. Ignorance, prejudice, misjudgment, neglect, or even contempt may influence one and cause him to omit mention of another. So long as these elements enter into and determine the course which one pursues, it is utterly impossible for us to arrive at a definite conclusion concerning such omissions as the ones noted by the objectors.

Dr. Wilson, in his usual straightforward and scholarly manner, investigates all of the assumptions upon which a charge is made and draws the following conclusion:

"Having thus considered fully all the objections to the early date of the Book of Daniel made on the ground of the silence of Ben Sira with respect to it, there seems to be no sufficient reason for doubting the conclusion that notwithstanding this silence the Book of Daniel may have been in existence before 180 B.C."

Continued on the next page