Page 28 - Daniel
P. 28

the  essential  weakness  of  such  an  argument  from  silence.  Rather,
               apocalyptic  writings  extended  over  a  long  period.  Conservative
               scholarship,  while  admitting  the  apocalyptic  character  of  the  book  of
               Daniel,  rejects  this  as  a  valid  ground  for  questioning  the  sixth-century
               authorship and therefore the genuineness of the book.




               Rejection of Miracles

                  If Daniel is to be considered spurious on the ground that it presents

               miracles,  it  would  follow  that  most  of  the  Scriptures  would  also  be
               eliminated as valid inspired writings. The objection to miracles reveals
               the essentially naturalistic point of view of some of the critics. Daniel’s
               miracles are no more unusual than some of those attributed to Christ in
               the Gospels, to Elijah in the book of 1 Kings, or to Moses and Aaron in
               the Pentateuch. Indeed, the deliverance of Daniel’s three companions in
               Daniel  3  and  of  Daniel  himself  in  Daniel  6  is  no  more  unusual  than

               Christ passing through the mob that was threatening to throw Him over
               a cliff (Luke 4:29–30) or Peter’s deliverance from prison (Acts 12:5–11).
               In  the  biblical  context,  the  rejection  of  a  book  because  of  miraculous
               incidents must be judged invalid.




               Textual Problems

                  Critics have raised textual problems almost without number in relation
               to  the  book  of  Daniel.  But  they  have  also  contradicted  each  other,
               testifying  to  the  subjective  character  of  these  criticisms.  Critics  have
               especially  concentrated  on  the  Aramaic  portions,  alleging  many
               redactions and various degrees of tampering with the text; but there is

               wide  divergence  in  their  findings.  Wilson,  probably  the  outstanding
               authority  on  ancient  languages  of  the  Middle  East  in  his  day,
               summarized his findings in these words,


                  We  claim,  however,  that  the  composite  Aramaic  of  Daniel  agrees  in
                  almost  every  particular  of  orthography,  etymology  and  syntax  with
                  the  Aramaic  of  the  North  Sem  inscriptions  of  the  9th,  8th  and  7th

                  cents.  B.C.  and  of  the  Egypt  papyri  of  the  5th  cent.  B.C.,  and  that  the
                  vocabulary  of  Daniel  has  an  admixture  of  Hebrew,  Babylonian  and
   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33