DANIEL IN THE CRITICS DEN
Chapter 6
"VIOLENT ERRORS"
"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.)
See Chapter 7