DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN
Chapter 4
"PHILOLOGICAL
PECULIARITIES":
THE
LANGUAGE OF DANIEL
"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.
See Chapter 5