The Books of the Prophet Daniel: An Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary (Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scripture) 1556354088, 9781556354083

Table of contents :
Cover
AUTH.OR'S PREFACE.
THE PROPHET DANIEL.

Citation preview

THE BOOK OF THE

PROPHET '.rHEOLOGIC:A.LLY AND

DANIEL.

HOMILETICALLY

EXPOUNJ)ED

BY

DR. OTTO ZOCKLER, PBOFESSOB 01' TBKOLOGY IN THE 'IJ'NIVBBSITY 01' GBBD'BW ALD, PBUSllli.

TRANSLATED,

ENLARGED,

AND

EDITED

BY

JAMES

STRONG, S.T.D.,

PBOil'ESSOB OJ' BXBGETICAL THEOLOGY IN DBEW TBBOLOGIO.I.L SBMIN.I.BY, l,liDISON, N. ~.

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene, Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 The Book of the Prophet Daniel an Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary By Zöckler, Otto ISBN 13: 978-1-55635-408-3 ISBN 10: 1-55635-408-8 Publication date 4/6/2007 Previously published by Charles Scribner, 1876

AUTH.OR'S PREFACE.

IN the following exposition of the Book of Daniel, the undersigned has occupiEd an exegetical and critical position, the peculiarity of which will probably not be.overlooked,· ori•a careful comparison with the views and methods of other recent expositors. While he has held fast to the authenticity of the book as a whole, although it was difficult for himto change his former opinion respecting the composition of the book, that it originat~d during the Maccabrean age, and to conform it to the results of the thorough investigations of M. v. Niebuhr, Pusey, Zi:in. del, Kranichfeld, Volek, Fiiller, and others, which demonstrated it.'! composition during the captivity, he is still obliged 'to retain his former doubts with respect to the greater portion of Chap; xi. (particularly vs. 5-39). The reasons which determine him to ·this conclusion, are certainly of an internal character only. They result in the conviction that a particularizing prophecy, embracing tlie history of centuries, as it is found in that section, forms sci marked a 11ontrastto everything in the line of specializing prediction that occurs elsewhere in the pro- . phetic literature of the Old Testament, that only the theory of an interpolating revision of its prophetic contents, imposed on it during the period of the Seleucid persecutions, or soon afterward, seems to afford a really satisfactory explanation of its particulars. Granted, that ln the face of the unanimous testimony of all the external witnesses to the integrity of the prophet's text, the subjective nature of a criticism, such as is involved in this conclusion, may be censured; granted, that it may be termed inconsequent, that the intimate unity of the wellplanned, well-adapted, and well-arranged work is thus broken through at but a single point; yet the ana,logia,visioniaprophetiC(JJ 1 which furnishes the motive for our decision, appears to 11l! to be no less a certain, objectively admissible, and most weighty criterion in critical questions ·like the ·present, thap. is the analogia fidei in the domain of Scriptural dogmatics. Nor _was the solution of the many difficulties that were encounter!ld, as it resulted from the assumption of an e:i, eventu interpolation at a single point, permitted to restrain us from submitting the progressive results ~f our investigation to the careful inspection of Biblical scholars belonging to wider circles, so far as the plan and design of the theological and homiletical Bible-work permitted such a course. [The American reviser has taken the liberty of combating the author's view as to the interpolation of the passage in question.] In the treatment of a prophetic book like the one before us, it is evident that the homiletic element must occupy a very subordinate place. Nor could it be a principal aim for an exegete to obtain dogmatic resuits and modes of presenting. them, from such a prophet as Daniel For this reason we have preferred to follow the example of one of our es.teemed ·co-laborers (Dr. Bahr, in his exposition of the Books of Kings), and accordingly we have given the title of salvation" to-the se"ction ordinarily of ".Ethico-fundamental plinciples related to the hiatut. much rather, to conceive of a long-familiar personage .of primitive times, who. was historically connected with events · in the experience .of Israel, or, which is. more probable, since we know no more concerning him; who Wall .like Job,.a mere product of the poetic ._fa;ncy. From the mltllner in which_ -Ezekiel refers to.· him, it ..is barely cm1ceivable. that he should have been, -as· the Daniel .of our book is represented; a Jewish . exile :and: con-temporary with Ezekiel." De. Wette (.Einl. i11s A. 'l'., p. 861) and Von l-,engerke (JJas Buch Daniel .ausgel., p. -xciii. et seq.) .likewise limit the _choice to either a ".man belonging to .the gray antiquity" or -to a· purely imaginary personage. Hitzig, ori .tlie other hand, regards the Daniel of Ezek. xiv. as not,.indeed, created by the writer, like Job, but. still as the '' c::hild-of tradition" like Noah and Melchizedek, and finds an intimate corresp.ondence, amounting -almost to. identity, of our. D~niel with the mysterious royal and piiestly persm;iage of- the .latter, who is assumed to be a junior contemporary of Noah-;-a relation which-exists especially in respect of.hisname.(;i~.,~,, ~~divine judge,'.' 1)-earlysyn'onyDlOUswith j;)i::z.,::;;i,:i,"king of. iighteousness.": Kunq;ef. (!Weget, ..Jiandbuch $U Daniel, p, viii.). Ewald; again (Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, vol. -II., Appendix, p: §62 et seq), considers the Daniel mentioned by-Ezekiel as having- been descended .-from one of the ten tribes, and ;is having lived and prophesied at the heathen. court of. Nineveh, a hundred years before the Babylonian Captivity. To this participator in the Assyrian captivity were attributed prophetic oracles respecting the -world-kingdoms, by an unknown Jewish author of the times of Alexander the Great or the earliest. Seleucidre; which were modified hy a later writer, in the time of Antiochus· Epipha_nes, -from ..,vhom they received their present .form. Bunsen .(Gott in iler Geschichte, I. 514 et seq.) agrees in the main with the first part of this hypothesis. The historical Daniel lived at the royal court in Nineveh soon after the deportation of the Israel:tes by Shalmaueser ; the fantastic representations of animals on tl_J.epalaC~Jlof Nimrud and »chorsabad,- which have become known to us through the researches of Botta and -Layard., -erved as mo.dels for his -visional descriptions of the world-kingdoms under .the form of various imaginary. animals, in chapters vh. and viii. ; and the. originator of the present book -.:ransformed the proph_et of Nineveh by mistake into a Babylonian. Compare below, § 4, uote 1. · Two earlier o·pponents of the- genuineness of this. book, Bertholdt and Ki.rmss, cndorse the opinion of Ewald and Bunsen, that Daniel was a real person of historical times; but instead of assigning this wise man, whom Ezekiel celebrates, to-an earlier age, they make him the contc1nporary of that.prophet, living at. the court- of .Babylon. The author of this book, who belonged to a much later period, and derived his entire knowledge of.Daniel from Ezekiel, merely clothed him in a mythical dress, etc. (Bertholdt, Daniel, etc., I. p. 7; fili.nleit. ins A. T.-, p. 1506-;- Kirmss, Oo,nrnentat·io historico-critica exhihens descriptionem et ,-,e1isui:am recentiorum. de_Daniel Ubro-opinionum;. Jen.· 1828, p .. 59 .et .seq.}; .in. like. manner -.lso Winer- in the Realworterb.;· Art. "Daniel '' ..(L,. p. 247J. - _ . The more recent defenders of the genuineness of, Daniel's prophecies :are in immediate cortespondence with the arguments raised by ..these latter critics hi support of the possibility of Oaniel's contemporary. exister,ce with Ezekiel, .despite· the peculiar manner in which he is meniionecl in Ezek. xiv. and xxviii. Hengstenberg.especiaUy (D~ Authentie des l)aniel, p. 70 et 11eq.)shows in a most discerning way that the chronological uiffi.culty. j.s of no importance, ,1i·nceDaniel must have been thirty yea.r8 .o.ld when.. Ezekiel xiv. was ..composed, and since the reward!! and hono:!"s.conferred on him by N ebucbadnezzar. must have been received a,t least ten years 'tJrtfO're that pB'riod; and furthei·, .that the book of Daniel itself (in sucl:r passages as chap. · i. 17, 2U; ii. 47; iv. 5; v. 11) testifies to. the extraordinary and_ early-developed wisdom, by which this pious youth was distinguished, and with refer!,nce to which Ezekiel was already enabled to. point the contemporary king of Tyre to hiin as a model of exalted wisdom ancj. Divine illumination (chap. xxviii. 8). 'l'he position assigned to Daniel between Noah and Job in chapter xiv. 14 and· 20, proves nothing :whatever concerning his ·patriarchal- age; rather, Job is placed at the end .of·the series because .he'.was .a less suitable example for the .immediate purpose of Ezekiel, than Noah and :Oaniel, the· preachers· of righteousness in the _midst .of a godless world. :,Jn general -agreement with this. view of Hengstenberg are, Hii.vernick (Komm. eu .EaechieZ,p. 206 et seq.; Neue Unwrsuchungcn ub6'J· Daniel, p. 28 et seq.; ..Einl. i~ A. T., ii. 2, 455), Klie_foth (Das 1:JuchEoochi,eln-ubenetet und erlcliirf, p. 177 et seq.; and Das Bucli Daniela, p. 81 et seq.), Delitzsch (in Hei·zog's Real-.Encylcl., s. v. Daniel),.and Zundel (Krit. Unteraucliung.en, etc., p. 258. et seq.). These later apolog1sts, however, justly declare Hengstenberg's e.xplanation of the circumstance that Daniel is placed between Noah ·and .Tob to be inade:iuate, and therefore endeavor to find a more appropriate explanation of this fact, which at the first blush seems so strange. HU:vernick and Kliefoth assume a climax·: "Noah saved himwf and hlS family; Daniel was _still. able to provide for his friends, chap,

12

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DANIEL.

ii. 17, 18; Job, despite bis uprightnese, could not even save hi.s children." Delitzsch explains tLe arrangement of names by assuming that Ezekiel "mentions first a righteous man belonging · to the ancient world, next, a righteous man belonging to the present world, and lastly, a righteous man who belongs to the ideal wol'ld;" for Job is "presented to the eyes of Israel as a righteous man only in the book of Job, which, although not without a historical basis, is m,t historical, but rather poetical and didactic." Finally, Zrtnd-el seeks to explain this arrangement of names by the observation, that Daniel occupied a "thoroughly analogous central aml universal position among his contemporaries," so to speak, as a mediator l.,etween Gcd and His people, by virtue of which, as formerly did Noah and Job, he presented his ui:;rightness and piety before God, in a reconciling and atoning way, when His anger was aroused because of the sins of His people. None of these attempts at explanation are entirely satisfactory to us ; but that of Delitzsch seems to be the most adequate and plausible, because the most simple and unconstrained. But may not euphonic considerations have contributed to the arrangemellt of the three names n:-, ~~"~"! and ::,,1,~, in like manner as such considerations appear to have prevaHed in other enumerations of prqper names! e. g., of the three sons of Noah (Gen. vi. 9; ix. 18, etc.), among which Ham, although the youngest of the three, is always placed before Japheth; of the three daughters of Job (Job xlii. 14), etc, As examples of the neglect of chronological order in the enumeration of names, compare, in addition, Eccles., chap. :xlix., where Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah (vs. 16-20) are placed before Enoch, Joseph, Seth, Shem, and Adam; _also Heb. xi. 82 (Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David; Samuel); Jude v. 9 et seq. (_Moses,Cain, Balaam, Korah, Enoch)_; Matt. xvi. 14 (John the Bapt-ist, Elijah, Jeremiah). The last of these examples is especially instructive, siuce it· shows that living persons might be classed with ptrsons of simila~·character belonging to tl1e earliest antiquity without any regard to chronological sequence. [The fact that Daniel is thus associated by Ezekiel, a nearly contemporary wiiter, with an undoubtedly historical personage, Noah, has always been held to be a strong pioof of his actual existence. The same holds true of Job, as mentioned in the same connection. Compare James v. 11. Indeed, ·the introduction of a purely mythical name in such a matter-of-fact connection would be irrelevant and nugatory.] NOTE 8.-0n the peculiarity of the prophetic character of Daniel, as constituting a priDcipal reason for referring this book among the Hagiographa, see Delitzsch, p. 272 :· "'rhe book of Daniel was placed among the Hagiographa, because he was not a prophet 1zyvfrtue of his ya .slow and imp!ll:fe_ctpt:Qcelj\!,,!18th~.author a .few sentences further on presumes, is contrary to all the probabilities in the'case.] .

•tat•

90

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DANIEL.

,.,.

prophets, which regarded all the facts to be related from a stl'ictly theocratical point of view, and by which their supernatural features were rather intensified and idealized, than simplified .and reduced to sober events of common occurrence. Compare§ 9, Note 1. § 5.

Am·HENTICITY

OF THE

Boox.

a. Rev·iew of the .Attacks on, and Defe= of, it8 Genuineness. The most ancient assailant of the genuineness of D11.niel'sprophecies o1 whom we have a certain knowledge, was the Neo-platonic Porphyry (died A. D. 304). In his :fifteen books "against the Christians," which are known to us only through Jerome so far as they contair. attacks on this book, he contends for its composition in Maccabrean times, and for the forged character of its prophecies as mere vaticinia ea, eventu.* It is uncertain whether Jewish rabbins who opposed Christianity were his predecessors and instructors in this assertion, or not. A passage in the Talmud, which attributes the "recording" of several books of the Old Testament, and among them Daniel; to the members of the Great Synagogue beginning with Ezra,1' affords no support .to the opinion that the authenticity of the book was denied in pre-Christian times in Jewish circles, since that" recording" is doubtless not to be understood in the sense of an miginal composition, but rather as a renewed recording on the authority of an exact tradition; or rather, o~ a new inspiration. The entire statement is, therefore, merely an empty legend of the sort which iR represented by the Jewish tales concerning the marvellous reproduction of the Pentateuch by Ezra, the origin of the Septuagint, etc. The statement of Isidore of Seville (died A. D. 636) that "Ezekiel and Daniel are said to have been Wiitten by certain v,ise men" t points back to the same muddy Jewish-rabbinical source. The "wise men'' in this case can scarcely be other than the men of the Great Synagogue, and their "writing" of the books of Ezekiel and Daniel cannot designate a forgery in any sense, but must be explained as in the Tiilmudic tradition referred to. In short, the older period ex:hibits no definite instance of the rejection of the authenticity of this prophetic book beyond the solitary one of Porphyry; and only the immediate opponents of this writer, as Methodius, Eusebius of Cresarea, Apollinaris of Laoclicea, or church fathers of the age next following, were engaged in the defense of the genuineness of the book; while refuting his objections. In the 17th centlll'y the opponents of its genuineness became somr.wbat n.ore numerous, but their objections were at first without any scientific value. Spinoza ( Tr,uta.t. the/Jl.-polit., x. 130 et seq.). held, that only chap. viii.-xii. were genuine; chap. i.-vii. might originally have formed component parts of the annals of the Chaldrean reigns, which, together with thefinal five chapters, were probably collected and published by a later hand. Hobbes (Le-Diathan,c. 3.3) doubted whether Daniel himself or a subsequent writer bad recorded bis prophecies. Sir Isaac Newton ( Observation11 11,pontlie prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse ef St. John, I. p. 10), whose view was followed, in the main, by Beausohre (RemarqueBsur le N. ·1.'est.,I. p. 70), tl1ought that " the last six chapters contained prophecies composed at various times by Daniel himself, while tl1e six former ones were a collection of historical essays by other authors." By this, however, he did not intend to attack the credibility or the inspired character of the hook; on the contrary, he declai-ed solemnly that "whoever rejects the· prophecies of Daniel, does as much as if he undermined the Christian religion, which, so to speak, is founded on Daniel's prophecies of Christ." If he regarded t.he :firstsix chapters as not the work of Daniel, it was not because he objected to the wonders recorded in them, as Zi.i.ndelthinks (Kritische Untersuchungen, etc., p. 2), but because he believed that their mode of presentation indicated one or several authors otl1er than Daniel. It was different, however, with Collins, the deisti • J.;,ome, Comm. in Dan. Prophet. : " Contra prophe.tam Danielem scripRit P01JJh1Jriu•,nole,,,. ., iy1n,as a prophet among his people In the congregation.Qf Israel, but ha. WM .a minister of.state under the Chalda,an and Medo-Persian world-mlers. Although, like David and Solomon, he possessed the gift of prophecy, and therefore was called 1Tpoi~T>I• (Sept. Josephus, N. T.), yet he we.snot IL i.e., a prophet in his officfal position and standing. Therefore his book, in its contents and form, is differ•

It"';;•

ent from the writings ·ofthe Nebty,,i, His prophecies are not propheticnl discourses addressed t.o Israel or the nations. but , vision", in whiclt the development of the world-kingdoms and their relation to the kingdom of G-Odare unveiled, and the bistorfoal part of his book describes events of the time when Israel went into captivity among the heathen. For these ,,..,,;ons hi.s book is not pln;ced in the class of the Nebiyln, which reaches from Joshua to Maloohi,-for these, according to the view of him who arranged the canon, are wholly the writings of such as held the prophetic office, t.e., the office requiring them openly, by word of mouth Rnd by writing; to annonnce the word of G-Od,-but in the claM of the KetllUbin, which l)Omprehends sacred writings of different kinds, who.so common character consists in this, that their authors did not fill the proi,hetic offiQe;ns, e.u.,Jonah iu the theocracy; whioh Is confirmed by the fact that the Lamentations of Jeremiah are oomprehended in this.class, since Jeremiah uttered these Lamentations over the destruction of Jernsalem and Judah not . as a prophet.bnt as a member of that nation which was.chastened by the Lord" (ComfM'l'larv on Da,.,, Introd., p. 29, 30,.

J,ldiDb.ed.). l

·

·

·

. AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF

DANIEL.

23

:note ·2).· Among. the ·Apocrypha-aside· from· ilncert.ain ·analogies, su:ch as exist·-between Wisd; v. 17 and Dan. vii. 18, 27; Wisd. xiv. 16 and Dan. iii.-at least 1 Mace. i. 67 (" Abomination of desolation," cf. Dan.· ix. 27) and ii. 69 et seq. (the deliverance of -Hananiah, ;Mishael; and Azariah from the fiery furnace; and of Daniei from the lion's den;· cf .. Dan. iii. 16 et seq.; vi. 21 et.seq.); and still more the book of Baruch; may be regarded as unquestionable witnesses for the canonical dignity of our book in pre-Maccabrean times. · The analogieii to the prayer of Daniel (Dan. ix.), which the latter book presents.in chap. ii. (especial).y vs. 6, H, 1(>,19), and its references to Nebuchadnezzar and to "Belshazzar ·his son,!' in chap. i. ll, 12, are the more-important and unquestionable· as proof, because the Hebrew original, which -we are-·compelled·to receive, indicates with tolerable certainty the origin of this book in preMaccabrean times, and· probably: as early as the. fourth century B. C. Under these circumstances, tb.e fact.that Ecclesiasticus, whose• Hebrew original likewise indicates. its composition before the period of the Maccabees, contains. no definite 11llusions to Daniel, -and especially that his name is not mentioned in it,feri,umeration (chap; xlix:) of Israel's great religious heroes, which. -includes Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, is of no considerable importanc~. This feature may be regarded as purely accidental, and .the rather, as.the immediate. context (chap. xlix. l3' et·seq.)'mentions·Zerubbabel, Joshua, and Nehemiah among tlie great men of the time immediately after the exile, but omits the name of Ezra; as niany of the prominent champions of Israel ·ate not included in the remarkable list beginning with chap. _xlv'.,e.g., Joseph, Gideon, Samson, Jehoshaphat, etc.; and finally, as the silence of Ecclus. in regard to Daniel " is more than balanced by,,his mention in Ezek. xiv. and xxviii. '' {Reusch, p ..112; cf. supra, § 2, note 2). ·Moreover, -the words EKOUT'!ll':S11n-KQTfUTTJUEII ~yavµ,11011 in Eccl us. ··xvii. 17 proba.bly contain an ·allusion·to the angelology of Daniel, and are to. be explained i:o.accordance with Dan. x. 13, 20; xii. 1 (Havernick, Einl. II. 2, p. 451). Concerning the. Sybilli'f!{J Qrac'les ~s an · especially -important source of proofs for the authenticity of DaDiel, see note 3. The passage fu·.the Jewish Anti?J.uitiesof Josephus,·Book XI. chap. 8, which relates that, among others, -the prophecies of Daniel were shown .by the Jewish priests to Alexander th!! Great, on the occasion of bis visit to Jerusalem, and that he was .greatly pleased by the oracle respecting the overthrow of-the Persian dynasty, which so clearly referred to him, might:colistitute an important'testimony for the genuineness of this book, or for its origin dt11ing the exile ; .but m·any embellishments: and internal improbabilities seem to lower the value of this traditi~n to a degree that forbids the definite conclusion that the statement concerning the book of Daniel is to be included ·in the genuine historical kernel of this incident, the essential truth of which, however, is indicated· by various considerations (e.g. the noteworthy and cer. tainly hist01ical statement that, at the request of 'the high-priest, Alexander granted immunity from taxation to the Jews during every seventh or fallow year). So much the more decisive is the testimony of the New Testament in support of the inspired character of the book and· of the prophetic dignity of its author; which occurs in the familiar reference of Our Lord tci' Daniel ix. 27, in his great eschatological discourse· (Matt. xxiv.' 15: ii.-a~0J11,a,,.-, :ro{3/3,'il.vyµ.a_ rijr fp,,µ.01cr£t,)S TO p,,~Ev a,a bavi.~A roV .Tr·PocJ>~ro-,., lurOr ,,, T6n-q,dylq>-0.dvay,vWu,ccaw 11oeln.i,:etc.), and which is paralleled.by .other unmistakable allusions to Daniel's expressions in the drscourses of Our Lord. · Among these we reckon the constantly ~epeated designation o·f hiniself as '' the Son of Man,". the adoption of which phrase from Dan. vii. 13 is open to no' serious objection, w_hileits identity with Daniel's W?;f"'l;i. is u_nmistakably revealed, especially. in.profihetic descriptions, such as Matt. xix. 28; xxiv. ab; xxvi 64. The prophecy concerning _the resurrection of the. good 11nd the evil, in John v. 28,. 29,.likewise, is clearly based on· our prophet which are found chap; xii: 2, 8, of-this book.· Aniong the-numerous· allusions in the writings of the 'Apostles, we instance merely 2 Thess. ii. 3 et seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 10-12 (cf. Dan. iii .. and ·vi.), and the Apocalypse, which latter book is based. throughout on the prophe-:· ci~s of Daniel, and therefore vouches, with its entire contents; for the Divinely inspired and 1 canonical character of this book.

to

;N'OTE-1.-:--lµai)iclif~ld,P..8 ~heq.;.~~plaiµs m,a·:strikii:ig manlier to what ·extentthepeculiar;·

_JNTRODUO'.].'IONTO THE PROPHET. j>ANIEL •

.theological, or rather eschatological, character of Daniel'11prophecies may have been influential 'in retarding their admission into the canon during the pre-Maccabrean period : " The prophecies of Daniel, in contrast with the oracles of earlier prophets, foretell a period of severe ,tribulation in the future, which the sufferings of the exile have not warded off; and they pres .diet this far ·more constantly, positively, and directly than does the book of Zechariah, oi· ariy prophecy of the period succeeding the captivity, the aim of the latter being chiefly to comfort _and encourage the returned exiles in their discouraging circumstances. There was thus a ·sufficient reason; in the character of the book itself, .to warrant its being received with caution ,by the age succeeding the exile, and even to justify the temporary ignoring of its claims ; for, ,on the one hand, it contradicted the sentiment of that _age, which indulged in exalted hopes pf deliverance based on the older prophecies, and, on the other, it had emanated from one who was not even a prophet by a specific cn,il. A similar treatment appears to have been accorde9to the book of Ecclesiastes during· an extended period, which likewise resulted from its contents, although differing extremely from those of Daniel. In the Asmonrean pe1iod, however; the impression produced by the religious and political events which illustrated its prophecies, 11ecuredthe book.a ready reception into the canon, although it was excluded from the second part of the sacred writings, which h&d probably been closed for centuries, and was limited by traditional usage. This simple explanation, which removes every difficulty in relation to the ·place of the book in the canon, is not contradicted by the remark of Josephus (Oontra A.pion, I. 8) concerning the closing of the canon in the time of Artaxerxes, which is, in the main, correct. That statement, as Keil correctly observes (IJJinl. § 154), refers to the time of the composition of the sacred wntings, in harmony with the fact that neither Ecclesiasticus nor ·1 Maccabees (which were composed only two centuries before Christ) found a place in the ·canon; but it does not preclude the subsequent conclusion of the colucting and receiving into PD:.d~.t.o. the, ,hi older-,prQpheti,c desc~ptiqns.-_i:a, .Isa...:µ:iv.,; b:vi ·22-24 ; ,;mzek.xurii,,. but.finds jio_a:Q.alogy the-later apocryphal 1-iterature, µnless :V\'eexcept 2 M~cc, :vii. ·g et seq:, whic_hpassage: however; ij; P~?b~)?'lyba~ed op.·;D~Ii.xii. as its ID;Odel.. No1-:does ,the ap.gellogyoft~e ):Joo~pres(!:Q.t sp~cjfic,feat1p;e.whic)i poj1:1,ts_ ~\l.a _perioi)at~r, ~hll,J,l, t~e_,exile_;.wucq. le~s,.does ~.tin~ica~ that its teachings result from the influence of the religious tp_ought .pf Persia, on ,Juda,ism~ Ratlier;,they a.re closely .rela,ted, on the ◊ne hand, to the angelology of Ezekiel and Zecharilili (cf., eig,, '.Ezek. i~; 10; · a}so i.·26, ·and Zech. '.i,-vD, and, on tµe .other, ~ey are rqoted int~e ni~cli'oid~:r,vi~ws_an,d.expe~ence~.~f- thetim.e, befo~e the·.exile; -~•fl•,the iq.ea of protect:i~g sptri~ .~f.,si!lg~e stat'!s j_s,~OU!);de~ _i)l.Ji;a. _:ii;xh:,21; .tha~. cqp.!,er.nia,gprince~ ;of t4e angel!! (chap. x.:18:r ~O; -xii. dQubtless.in the.,familiar account fo ..the.b.ook of Joshua respecting the·•~ captai~ of· the Lord's host" (Josh. 14) .. Therefore, in this direction also, the literary cb.a!,act~r o.f t),le ~.o