pompous, solemn, austere, rough, and at times unpolished: he employs frequent repetitions, not for the sake of grace or elegance, but from the vehemence of passion and indignation. Whatever subject he treats of, that he sedulously pursues, from that he rarely departs, but cleaves as it were to it; whence the connection is in general evident and well preserved. In many respects he is perhaps excelled by the other prophets; but, in that species of composition to which he seems by nature adapted, the forcible, the impetuous, the great and solemn, not one of the sacred writers is superior to him. His diction is sufficiently perspicuous: all his obscurity consists in the nature of the subject. Visions (as, for instance, among others, those of Hosea, Amos, and Jeremiah) are necessarily dark and confused. The greater part of Ezekiel, towards the middle of the book especially, is poetical, whether we regard the matter or the diction." His periods, however, are frequently so rude, that bishop Lowth expresses himself as being often at a loss how to pronounce concerning his performance in this respect. In the same place the same learned prelate remarks that Ezekiel should be oftener classed among the orators than the poets; and he is of opinion that, with respect to style, we may justly assign to Ezekiel the same rank among the Hebrews as Homer, Simonides, and Eschylus hold among the Greeks.

From this high praise of bishop Lowth's, his learned annotator, Michaelis, dissents; who is disposed to think the prophet displays more art and luxuriance in amplifying and decorating his subject, than is consistent with poetical fervour, or, indeed, with true sublimity. Michaelis further pronounces Ezekiel to be, in general, an imitator, who possesses the art of giving an air of novelty and ingenuity, but not of grandeur and sublimity, to all his compositions; and, since the prophet lived at a period when the Hebrew language was visibly on the decline, he thinks that, if we compare him with the Latin poets who succeeded the Augustan age, we may find some resemblance in the style, something that indicates the old age of poetry. In these sentiments the English translator of bishop Lowth's lectures partially acquiesces, while Eichhorn minutely discusses his claims to originality.' Archbishop Newcome, however, has completely vindicated the prophet's style.2

[Ezekiel seems to have a marked and decided character. Having been trained under priestly influences, he shows a mind imbued with ritual lore, of which he could well discern the symbolic and spiritual import. He had great richness of fancy; and a wonderful fire burns in his discourses. He was, as Hengstenberg describes him, of a mighty, gigantic nature, peculiarly fitted to contend with the Babylonish spirit of the period, which assumed such strange and powerful shapes; and,

Bishop Lowth's Lectures, vol. ii. pp. 89-95.

See archbishop Newcome's Preface to his translation of Ezekiel, pp. xxvI. xxviii. To justify the character given, he descends to particulars and produces apposite examples, not only of the clear, the flowing, and the nervous, but also of the sublime. He concludes his observations on the style of Ezekiel by stating it to be his deliberate opinion, that, if the prophets' "style is the old age of the Hebrew language and composition, it is a firm and vigorous one, and should induce us to trace its youth and manhood with the most assidous attention." Ibid. pp. xxviii.-lxii.

though he stood alone, his weight was that of a hundred of the prophetscholars. We see the influence he possessed in the fact that the elders of his people used to assemble at his house to hear the word of the Lord by him, a proof of the open acknowledgment of his spiritual dignity among the Jewish exiles. The estimate which De Wette and others have formed of him is therefore too low, when he is represented as wanting in depth of intellect and largeness of thought, and as falling into constraint and confusion when he attempts in symbolic description to rise above his ordinary level.'

The forms of Ezekiel's compositions are varied. Sometimes the strain is didactic, in which proverbial expressions are interwoven, as in xii. 22. &c., xvi. 44. &c., xvii. 1. &c., xviii. 2., and extends itself in long-drawn sentences, with oratorical fulness; at other times it rises to poetic dignity and lyric spirit. Then, again, we find allegorical representation, unfolding a vast richness of majestic ideas and colossal symbols, including not unfrequently symbolic actions. Hence there is much that is dark and mysterious in his prophecies; as Jerome long ago observed.3

Ezekiel's style is characterized by a mass of peculiar and frequentlyrecurring expressions and forms; and, though he shows a dependence on earlier models, on the Pentateuch in particular, he has words and word-forms of his own, together with Aramaisms and corruptions, evidencing the decline of the Hebrew language, and testifying to the prophet's residence in a foreign land.

The following are some of his peculiarities:-the constant application of the title "son of man" to himself, ii. 1, 3, 6, 8., iii. 1, 3, 4. &c.; the designation of the people as "?', “a rebellious house," ii. 5, 6, 7, 8., iii. 9, 26, 27., xii. 2, 3, 9., xvii. 12., xxiv. 3., xliv. 6.; the expressions, "they shall know that I am the Lord," v. 13., vi. 10., vii. 4, 27., xii. 15., xiv. 8., xv. 7. &c.; "they shall know that there hath been a prophet among them," ii. 5., xxxiii. 33.; "the hand of the Lord was, or fell, upon me," i. 3., iii. 22., viii. 1., xxxvii. 1.; "set thy face against," iv. 3, 7., vi. 2., xiii. 17., xxi. 2, 16., xxv. 2., xxviii. 21., &c.;, "as I live, saith the Lord Jehovah," v. 11., xiv. 16, 18, 20., xvi. 48., xvii. 16., xviii. 3., xx. 31, 33., xxxiii. 11., xxxv. 1 1.; and the perpetually-recurring phrase, or in, ii. 4., iii. 11, 27., v. 5, 7, 8., vi. 3, 11., vii. 2, 5., xi. 8, 21., xii. 25., &c. &c. Keil further gives a long list of peculiar words and word-forms, as pn, to cut or hew, xvi. 40., 2, to trouble or make turbid, xxxii. 2, 13., ny for nyn, to wander, xiii. 10., 1, a barber, v. 1., with many others, for which the student must be referred

to his book. 5

There are various Messianic prophecies in Ezekiel. Besides those in earlier parts of the book, the last three sections, xxxvi. xxxvii., xxxviii. xxxix., and xl.—xlviii. are eminently such. On the precise meaning of these there is much difference of opinion."]

Christology (Arnold), p. 675.

'Præf. in lib. xiv. Comm. in Ezech.

Ibid., pp. 308, 309.

6

Ezekiel.

Einleitung, § 223.

Keil, Einleitung, § 79. pp. 307, 308.

Comp Henderson, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel; Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit. art.

SECTION VI

ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL.

I. Author and date —II. nalysis of its contents.-III. Observations on its canonical authority and style. Objections to its authenticity refuted.

-IV. Account of the spurious additions made to it.

BEFORE CHRIST, 606-534.

I. DANIEL, the fourth of the greater prophets, if not of royal birth (as the Jews affirm), was of noble descent, and was carried captive to Babylon at an early age, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim king of Judah, in the year 606 before the Christian era, and seven years before the deportation of Ezekiel.

[In Daniel i. 1. it is said that" in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it." This statement De Wette pronounces "evidently false; because, according to Jer. xxv. 1., xlvi. 2., the fourth year of Jehoiakim is the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and, according to Jer. xxv. 9., neither in the fourth of Jehoiakim, nor, according to Jer. xxxvi. 9., in the fifth of Jehoiakim had the Chaldeans come up to Jerusalem." The reply is not very difficult. The years of Nebuchadnezzar in Kings and Jeremiah are enumerated from an earlier epoch than the actual beginning of his reign. They date from his victories in Judæa and Syria, as lieutenant or colleague of his father, Nabopolassar. Daniel, however, ii. 1., dates from his actual accession to undivided sovereignty. Jehoiakim, who was placed on the Jewish throne by Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings xxiii. 34.), reigned, as his vassal, three years. On the war between Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh, in which the latter was defeated (Jer. xlvi. 2.), Jerusalem was occupied before or just after the battle of Carchemish by the Chaldeans, and captives, among whom was Daniel (i. 1.), were carried to Babylon. Jehoiakim was then for three years tributary to Nebuchadnezzar, but afterwards rebelled; and the Chaldean forces, it is said, subsequently marched against him (see before, pp. 465,466.). Then was accomplished that which we read (Jer. xxii. 18, 19.) of the disgraceful end of the Jewish king. His son Jehoiachin succeeded, but after a nominal sovereignty of three months was deposed and carried to Babylon (2 Kings xxiv. 8., &c. ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9,10.). It is difficult to say whether the Chaldean expedition against Jehoiakim (2 Chron. xxxvi. 5—7.) is that in his fourth year, or in the closing part of his reign. It will be observed that Daniel (i. 1.) speaks of the third year of Jehoiakim, while the battle of Carchemish is said to have been in his fourth year. It may be supposed that Nebuchadnezzar's march commenced in the third but that the objects of the campaign were not fully attained till the fourth year. Mr. Browne dates the years of his reign from the first of Nisan 3; and an event beginning before and extending beyond that day might be placed indifferently in one year or the other. There is something analogous Einleitung, § 253.

See Browne, Ordo Sæclorum, part i. chap. iii. sect. i. §§ 161. &c.
Ibid.

in our own practice, as has been already shown.' But we are told that Jer. xxv. 6-9, and xxxvi. 9. forbid us to believe that any Chaldean invasion had then occurred; i. e. in the fourth and fifth years of Jehoiakim. Is it possible that any such inference drawn from these passages can satisfy a reasonable mind? Anything whatever may be proved, with or without arguments, if proofs of this kind are to be held good. Let us look into the matter. It is maintained, from the promise, Jer. xxv. 6., "I will do you no hurt," that no calamity had as yet befallen the Jewish people. The history of the previous years exclaims against such a deduction. Jeremiah is recounting the pains God had taken to bring the Jews to repentance from the thirteenth of Josiah to the fourth of Jehoiakim; and to say that at the latter date no judgments had as yet been inflicted is to defy the plainest testimony of facts. For within the space of time named (2 Kings xxiii.) Josiah had perished in battle; Jehoahaz or Shallum, whom the Jews had placed on the throne, was deposed and made prisoner by Pharaoh; a large sum of money was exacted by the king of Egypt; Jehoiakim, the late king's brother, was made king, but merely as an Egyptian vassal; and in order to pay the appointed tribute he had to lay heavy taxes upon the people. Surely these were sore judgments. It cannot be denied, in spite of the words in question, that the capital had been occupied by a hostile Egyptian force; why should they be held to make the fact of its occupation by a hostile Chaldean force incredible? And, seeing that all these judgments had produced no effect, a yet more dreadful destruction is threatened (vv. 8-11.); which was ultimately inflicted in the deportations under Jehoiachin and Zedekiah. The argument from xxxvi. 9., that, because a fast was proclaimed in Jehoiakim's fifth year, no enemy had as yet taken Jerusalem, really cannot require any serious refutation.2] Having been instructed in the language and literature of the Chaldeans, which at that time was greatly superior to the learning of the ancient Egyptians, Daniel afterwards held a very distinguished office in the Babylonian empire (Dan. i. 1-4.). He was contemporary with Ezekiel, who mentions his extraordinary piety and wisdom (Ezek. xiv. 14, 20., xxviii. 3.). He continued in great credit with the Babylonian monarchs; and his uncommon merit procured him the same regard from Darius and Cyrus the first two sovereigns of Persia. He lived throughout the captivity; but it does not appear that he returned when Cyrus permitted the Jews to revisit their native land. The pseudo-Epiphanius says that he died at Babylon; and this assertion has been adopted by most succeeding writers; but, as the last of his visions was in the third year of Cyrus, about 534 years before the Christian era, when he was about ninety-four years of age, and resided at Susa on the Tigris, it is not improbable that he died there.

Although the name of Daniel is not prefixed to his book, the many passages in which he speaks in the first person sufficiently prove that he was the author. He is not reckoned among the prophets by the Jews, since the time of Jesus Christ, who say that he lived the life of

See before, p. 468.

2 See Kitto's Cycl. of Bibl. Lit. art. Jehoiakim,

a courtier in the court of the king of Babylon, and that, though he received divine revelations, yet these were only by dreams and visions of the night, which they consider as the most imperfect mode of revelation. But Josephus accounts Daniel one of the greatest of the prophets, and says that he conversed familiarly with God, and not only predicted future events (as other prophets did) but also determined the time of their accomplishment.'

II. This book may be divided into two parts. The first is historical: the second is strictly prophetical, and comprises the visions and prophecies which enabled Daniel to foretell events relative to the monarchies of the world, the time of the advent and death of the Messiah, the restoration of the Jews, and the conversion of the Gentiles.

PART I. contains the historical part of the book of Daniel (i.—vi.), forming six sections; viz.

1. A history of the carrying away of Daniel and his three friends to Babylon, and of their education and employment (i.).

2. Nebuchadnezzar's dream of an image composed of different metals (ii. 1-13.)2; the interpretation communicated to Daniel (14-23.) who reveals it to the monarch (24-35.), and interprets it of the four great monarchies. The head of gold represented the Babylonian empire (32.); the breast and arms, which were of silver, the Medo-Persian empire (32, 39.); the brazen belly and thighs the Macedo-Grecian empire (32, 39.): the legs and feet, which were partly of iron and partly of clay, represented the Roman empire (33, 40-43.), which would break to pieces every other kingdom, but in its last stage should be divided into ten smaller kingdoms, denoted by the ten toes of the image. The stone, "cut out of the mountain without hands, which brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold" (34, 35.), represented the kingdom of the Messiah, which was "to fill the whole earth," and stand for ever, unchangeable and eternal (44, 45.). This section concludes with an account of the promotion of Daniel and his friends to distinguished honour.

3. An account of the miraculous preservation of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (iii.).

4. Nebuchadnezzar, having been punished with the loss of his reason, is restored to reason and to his throne, and proclaims to the world Daniel's interpretation of his dream, and extols the God of heaven (iv.). For an account of the nature of his insanity, see Vol. III. pp. 553, 554.

5. The history of Daniel under Belshazzar; who, while profaning the sacred vessels which had been carried away from Jerusalem, is terrified with a hand inscribing certain words on the wall, which Daniel promptly reads and interprets. In that same night, Belshazzar is slain; and the Babylonian empire is transferred to the Medes and Persians (v.).

6. Daniel being promoted under Darius the Mede, a conspiracy is formed against him. The prophet, having been cast into a den of lions, is miraculously preserved; and Darius publishes a decree that all men should glorify the God of Daniel (vi.).

PART II. comprises various prophecies and visions of things future, until the advent and death of the Messiah, and the ultimate conversion of the Jews and Gentiles to the faith of the gospel, in four sections (vii.-xii.).

Josephus, Ant. Jud. lib. x. cap. 11. § 7.

2 It has been asserted, on very insufficient grounds, that this vision occurred in the latter part of Nebuchadnezzar's reign; it is needless to rcbut the assertion. Jahn, Introduction by Professor Turner, p. 406.