The Coming Prince

536 Pages·2015·1.41 MB·English

THE COMING PRINCE
SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
British Library Cataloguing In Publication Data
A Record of this Publication is available
from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-84778-0126

Published 2008 by
diggory press
an imprint of
Diggory Press Ltd
Three Rivers, Minions, Liskeard, Cornwall, PL14
5LE, UK
WWW.DIGGORYPRESS.COM
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
A DEFENSE OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL
AGAINST THE "HIGHER CRITICISM."
This volume has been disparaged in some quarters
because, it is alleged, it ignores the destructive
criticism which is supposed to have led "all people
of discernment" to abandon belief in the visions of
Daniel.
The charge is not altogether just. Not only are
some of the chief objections of the critics
answered in these pages, but in proving the
genuineness of the great central prophecy of the
book, the authenticity of the whole is established,
And the absence of a special chapter upon the
subject may be explained. The practice, too
common in religious controversy, of giving an ex
parte representation of the views of opponents,
instead of accepting their own statement of them,
is never satisfactory, and seldom fair. And no
treatise was available on the critics' side, concise
enough to afford the basis of a brief excursus, and
yet sufficiently full and authoritative to warrant its
being accepted as adequate.
This want, however, has since been supplied by
Professor Driver's Introduction to the Literature
of the Old Testament, (1) a work which embodies
the results of the so-called "Higher Criticism," as
accepted by the sober judgment of the author.
While avoiding the malignant extravagance of the
German rationalists and their English imitators, he
omits nothing which erudition can with fairness
urge against the authenticity of the Book of
Daniel. And if the hostile arguments he adduces
can be shown to be faulty and inconclusive, the
reader may fearlessly accept the result as an "end
of controversy" upon the subject. (2)
Here is the thesis which the author sets himself
to establish:
"In face of the facts presented by the Book of
Daniel, the opinion that it is the work of Daniel
himself cannot be sustained. Internal evidence
shows, with a cogency that cannot be resisted, that
it must have been written not earlier than c. 300
B.C., and in Palestine; and it is at least probable
that it was composed under the persecution of
Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 168 or 167."
Professor Driver marshals his proofs under three
heads:
(1) facts of a historical nature;
(2) the evidence of the language of Daniel; and
(3) the theology of the Book.
Under (1) he enumerates the following points:
(a) "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."
(b) "Jesus, the son of Sirach (writing c. 200
B.C.), in his enumeration of Israelitish worthies, c.
44-50, though he mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and (collectively) the Twelve Minor
Prophets, is silent as to Daniel."
(c) "That Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem
and carried away some of the sacred vessels in 'the
third year of Jehoiakim' (Daniel 1:1 f.), though it
cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved, is highly
improbable: not only is the Book of Kings silent,
but Jeremiah, in the following year (Jeremiah 25,
etc.), speaks of the Chaldaeans in a manner which
appears distinctly to imply that their arms had not
yet been seen in Judah."
(d) "The 'Chaldaeans' are synonymous in Daniel
with the caste of wise men. This sense ' is
unknown to the Assyro-Babylonian language, has,
wherever it occurs, formed itself after the end of
the Babylonian empire, and is thus an indication
of the post-exilic composition of the Book'
(Schrader)."…
(e) "Belshazzar is represented as K i n g of
Babylon; and Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of
throughout chap. 5: (vv. 2, 11, 13, 18, 22) as his
father."…
(f) "Darius, son of Ahasuerus, a Mede, after the
death of Belshazzar, is 'made king over the realm
of the Chaldaeans.' There seems to be no room for
such a ruler. According to all other authorities,
Cyrus is the immediate successor of Nabu-nahid,
and the ruler of the entire Persian empire. "…
(g) "In 9:2 it is stated that Daniel 'understood by
the books' the number of years for which,
according to Jeremiah, Jerusalem should lie waste.
The expression used implies that the prophecies of
Jeremiah formed part of a collection of sacred
books, which nevertheless it may be safely
affirmed, was not formed in 536 B.C."
(h) "Other indications adduced to show that the
Book is not the work of a contemporary, are such
as the following": The points are the
improbability, first, that a strict Jew would have
entered the class of the "wise men," or that he
would have been admitted by the wise men
themselves; second, Nebuchadnezzar's insanity
and edict; third, the absolute terms in which he
and Darius recognize God, while retaining their
idolatry.
I dismiss (f) and (h) at once, for the author
himself, with his usual fairness, declines to press
them. "They should," he admits, "be used with
reserve." The mention of "Darius the Mede" is
perhaps the greatest difficulty which confronts the
student of Daniel, and the problem it involves still
awaits solution. The unqualified rejection of the
narrative by many eminent writers only proves the
incapacity even of scholars of repute to suspend
their judgment upon questions of the kind. The
history of that age is too uncertain and confused to
justify dogmatism, and, as Professor Driver justly
remarks, "a cautious criticism will not build too
much on the silence of the inscriptions, where
many certainly remain to be brought to light". In
Mr. Sayce's recent work (3) this caution is
neglected. He accepts, moreover, with a faith
which is unduly simple, all that Cyrus says about
himself. It was obviously his interest to represent
the acquisition of Babylonia as a peaceful
revolution, and not a military conquest. But the
Book of Daniel does not conflict with either
hypothesis. Mr. Sayce here "reads into it," as is so
constantly done, what it in no way states or even
implies. There is not a word about a siege or a
capture. Belshazzar was "slain," and Darius
"received" the kingdom; but how these events
came about we must learn from other sources.
Professor Driver here admits in express terms
"that 'Darius the Mede' may prove, after all, to
have been a historical character"; (4) and this is
enough for our present purpose.
The remaining points I proceed to discuss
seriatim.
(a) This is rightly placed first, as being the most
important. But its apparent importance grows less
and less the more closely it is examined. Our
English Bible, following the Vulgate, divides the
Old Testament into thirty-nine books. The Jewish
Canon reckoned only twenty-four. These were
classified under three heads – the Torah, the
Neveeim, and the K ethuvim (the Law, the
Prophets, and the Other Writings). The first
contained the Pentateuch. The second contained
eight books, which were again classified in two
groups. The first four – viz., Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings – were called the "Former
Prophets"; and the second four – viz., Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and "the Twelve" (i . e . the
minor prophets reckoned as one book) – were
called the "Latter Prophets." The third division
contained eleven books – viz., Psalms, Proverbs,