Page 22 - Daniel

beforehand the clearest signs of events to come. And because Porphyry
saw that all these things had been fulfilled and could not deny that
they had taken place, he overcame this evidence of historical accuracy
by taking refuge in this evasion, contending that whatever is foretold
concerning Antichrist at the end of the world was actually fulfilled in

the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, because of certain similarities to
things which took place at his time. But this very attack testifies to
Daniel’s accuracy. For so striking was the reliability of what the
prophet foretold, that he could not appear to unbelievers as a
predictor of the future, but rather a narrator of things already past.

And so wherever occasion arises in the course of explaining this
volume, I shall attempt briefly to answer his malicious charge, and to
controvert by simple explanation the philosophical skill, or rather the
worldly malice, by which he strives to subvert the truth and by
specious legerdemain to remove that which is so apparent to our
eyes. 17

This statement may be taken as the attitude of the church consistently
held until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century. At that
time, the suggestion of Porphyry began to be taken seriously and

arguments were amassed in support of a second century date for Daniel.
It should be noted at the outset that (1) the theory had an anti-Christian
origination; (2) no new facts were raised that challenged the previous
judgment of the church; and (3) the support of Porphyry by higher
critics was a part of their overall approach to the Scriptures, which

tended almost without exception to deny the traditional authorship of
most books of the Bible. They claimed that books frequently had several
authors and went through many redactions, and—most importantly—
included the almost universal denial by the higher critics of the
traditional doctrine of biblical inerrancy and verbal, plenary inspiration.
The attack on Daniel was part of an attack upon the entire Scriptures,
using the historical-critical method.

The great volume of these objections, based for the most part on
higher critical premises which in themselves are subject to question,

involves so many details that an entire volume is necessary to answer
them completely. At best, a summary of the problem and its solution can
be considered here. Generally speaking, critical objections to particular