If these aims are borne steadily in mind, objections which have been taken to the authenticity of the book will disappear of themselves.

Besides the canonical writings which bear Daniel's name, there are extant in Greek, others which wear the features of spuriousness, and find their place in the Apocrypha. These are the history of Susanna, of Bel and the Dragon, the prayer of Azarias. and the song of the three children in the fiery furnace.

The book of Daniel, as well as that of Ezra, is peculiar, in being written in two languages. In the Hebrew are chapters i. ii. 3; also viii.-xii.: the remaining ii. 4 -vii. are written in Eastern Aramaic, or Chaldee.

It must also be remarked, that the first six chapters are distinguished from the six ensuing in this, that in the former, Daniel is spoken of in the third person, while in the latter he himself speaks in the first.

The book is without the name of its author, though the latter half professes to be composed by Daniel. It is worthy of notice, that the work consists of a number of parts more or less disconnected. It cannot, however, be hence inferred, that these parts proceeded from different hands. They may be pieces written at different periods in Daniel's life, and put together after its close, in the manner of a collection of separately published poems. The general tone of thought, and the deep, rich, oriental colouring; the intimate knowledge displayed of the manners and modes of action in Eastern courts; and the relations in which the Chaldæans and the Jews, especially the magi and Daniel, stand to each other, combine to make it probable, that the Daniel, whose history the book relates, is its author; and to give us an assurance, that, whoever the author was, we have here a reality, -a transcript from actual life, - a page out of the world's history.

This, however, is a different question from that which asks, whether the condition in which the book now lies lies before us is that in which its materials proceeded from the prophet's pen. Evidences there are in the work, which show the working of a later hand. It appears not unlikely that some Israelite gathered together the several pieces which Daniel had himself put forth, adding to them such biographical notes as he might think desirable. An intimation of another hand is found so early as chap. i. 21. Nor was it likely that the prophet would himself have written, that among the magi none was found like himself (i. 19; see 20, and vi. 4).

The book of Daniel was held in high, though not the highest, estimation by the ancient Jews; but, so early as the third contury, it found an assailant in Porphyry, the

Syrian Neoplatonist, who wrote against Christianity. This philosopher maintained, that the book was the work of a deceiver, written in Greek, in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (cir. 170, A.C.). His attacks, however, did not shake the prevalent belief in its authenticity. The celebrated Spinoza published doubts respecting its five first chapters, which regarded not the credibility of their contents, but the time when they were united with the rest.

It is in our own days, however, that the most strenuous and sweeping attacks have been made on the book of Daniel. Hezel threw doubt over chapters i.—vi.; Michaelis over iii.-vi.; and Corrodi, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, de Wette, Bleek, and Kirms, have denied that Daniel was its author, ascribing its composition to some Jew living in the time of the Maccabees, with a view to encourage his nation in their struggle for liberty. The attacks made by these critics called into the field able defenders in Lüderwald, Stäudlin, Jahn, Hengstenberg, and Herbst. This is not the place to enter into so purely critical a question. Yet the writer must be permitted to say, that in his opinion the defence has been fairly and successfully conducted. It is equally clear, that the impulse which led to these recent questionings of the authenticity and credibility of our author had for its origin and support a deeply-rooted predetermination against those displays of the divine power, that men have designated miracles. Such a presumption renders it necessary to get in some way rid, either of the miraculous in a book, or of the book itself. But this is a state of mind as most alien to the spirit of criticism, so most adverse to a just judgment respecting the authorship of a Biblical writing. And it is no little curious, yet painful, to remark that some of the very men who in Germany have most strongly protested against all assumptions in the theologian, and have carried on the most rigorous processes of critical investigation, giving therein a model well worthy of imitation, have yet, with a lamentable inconsistency, entered on their Scriptural studies with a most decided and unsparing bias against all miracle, derived from schools of modern philosophy. To persons of this state of mind, Daniel and other books may well appear unauthentic and incredible; but then these critics might as well have saved themselves the trouble of entering on an inquiry which could have only one issue. Having made up their minds against the very essence of the books, not to say of revealed religion, they would have acted consistently had they turned their talents and industry into some other channel.

DARIUS. Properly, like our word sovereign, Darius, in Persian Darawesh, is a regal title; but in Greek historians, and

others who have followed them, it is the name of several Persian kings, of whom three are mentioned in the Bible: -I. Da rius the Mede (Dan. xi. 1), son of Ahasuerus (Dan. ix. 1), conqueror of Babylon (Dan. vi. 1). He is not Artaxerxes, or Astyages, still less Darius Hystaspis; but, since in vi. 29 he appears as the immediate predecessor of Cyrus, without doubt Cyaxeres II. son of Astyages, who followed his father in the government; gained the empire of Babylon; but, given up to self-indulgence, surrendered nearly all power into the hands of his nephew and son-in-law, Cyrus: on which account, Herodotus, Ctesias, and other later historians, pass over Cyrus as a Median ruler, and begin the list of Medo-Persian kings with Cyrus. See the II. Darius Hystaspis, or article CYRUS. son of Hystaspes (Ezra iv. 5; v. 5. Hag. i. 1; ii. 1. Zach. i. 1), ascended the Persian throne after the magian Smerdis (521 or 522, A.C.). In the second year of his reign, he confirmed the favour which Cyrus had granted to the Jews, permitting them to rebuild their temple, and considerably augmented his dominions by several fortunate conquests. He died after a reign of thirty-six years, 486, A.C.-III. Darius the Persian (Neh. xii. 22) is either Darius Nothus, a son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who (425, A.C.) ascended the throne a short time after his brother Xerxes II. and died (405, A.C.) after a troubled reign of nineteen years; or, as Nehemiah, in the passage just referred to, makes Darius the Persian a contemporary of the high priest Jaddua, who lived in Jerusalem at the time when it was entered by Alexander the Great, this third Darius has been held by Grotius and Le Clerc to be D. Codomannus. If this is correct, then the narrative cannot have been written by Nehemiah. With Darius Codomannus, however, the Persian kingdom came to an end. He is mentioned in Macc. i. 1.

daughter of the lips;' tears, ' daughters of the eyes.' Horace calls a ship the daughter of a wood' ('Car.' lib. i. 14).

The usage is found in the Scriptures. A vizier was the king's father (Gen. xlv. 8); ' sons of power' (marg.) are mighty warriors (Deut. iii. 18); son of the morning,' the morningstar, or dawn of day (Isa. xiv. 12); 'daughters of howling,' ostriches (Isa. xiii. 21). Not the least curious is mother of the way' (Ezek. xxi. 21), for the open place where two or more roads meet, and where they seem to take their origin.

These remarks will give the reader some means of seeing how picturesque is the Hebrew tongue. Very beautifully does the phrase, 'father of life,' paint the rain and its lovely consequences, especially to those who know with what magical speed and rich luxuriance the fall of rain calls forth verdure, and all the treasure of the spring, in Eastern climes. A. M. 4475; DAVID (H. a favourite. A.C. 1073; V. 1085), the youngest son of

Jesse, a man of property residing in Bethlehem, and of the tribe of Judah (1 Sam. xvi. 1, 11), who afterwards became the second Hebrew king. David's early years were spent in the duties of husbandry (Ps. lxxviii. 70), which, in a period when the Israelites were subject to constant attacks from their idolatrous neighbours, and were more than once compelled to endure the yoke of the Philistines, must have been occasionally interrupted by martial undertakings, especially as his native place lay at no great distance from Philistia. The tranquil pursuits of the shepherd were, in consequence, often suddenly exchanged for the toils and perils of a soldier's life. But the Philistines had so far prevailed against the Israelites, as to strip them of their weapons, leaving them to such means of defence as invention, sharpened by necessity, might supply. In such an emergency, the sling, as well as the bow, was employed; and the younger men, ashamed of their country's degradation, would spare no effort in order to make up by skill what their weapons wanted in efficiency. In the several engage ments which this state of things implies, David, rescued probably by the insecurity of the times from the perversions to which the youngest child is often subject, appears to have made more than ordinary proficieney; and, being gifted with fine seusibilities, he relieved his more serious pursuits with the recreations of the lyre. While yet in the prime of youth, ruddy, and of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to,' he was selected and anointed to be the king of Israel by the prophet Samuel; who had been directed to make choice of David, because Saul, the reigning monarch, had forfeited the honourable post by disobedience (1 Sam. xv. 11, 23: there seem to be two accounts; see xiii. 13). Saul, however, as having been anointed to his office, continued to hold the sceptre, which would fall from his hands only in the hour of death. But the loss of the succession so deeply afflicted him, that from time to time he sank into a profound melancholy. The darkness of his mind might be relieved by the charms of music; and the reputation of David as a harper was such, that the young man was sent for to court, the rather because he was 'a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person; and the Lord is with him' (1 Sam. xvi. 18). The sweet tones of David's harp charmed away the dark feelings of Saul, who formed a peculiar attachment for the young man, and gave him the office of his armour-bearer; so that he was continually near his sovereign's person. This was a great change for David; a transition into a new life. The change brought its penalty, in the forfeiture of those pure and simple pleasures which he had hitherto enjoyed in the rustic home of his parents,

and amid the duties which he discharged to his flocks and herds. Probably, could the youth have seen what it was he should pass into the possession of, on leaving the sheepfold, and the open downs, and the solitudes of nature, and communings with his own glad heart, and the spontaneous music of his self-trained harp, he would, in prospect of the turmoil, peril, distress, sin, sorrow, and debasement, which were coming on, have refused to exchange the shepherd's crook for the reversion of the crown, and the immediate favour of his country's king.

David, however, had a soul too high to remain a mere court-musician. In a time of peril, such as that in which Samuel's latter days were spent, Israel demanded his services. In a war with their too powerful enemies, the Philistines, the Hebrews were mockingly defied by Goliath of Gath; and such was the dejection of the national mind, that the challenge which, after the custom of the age, he gave to contend in single combat with any champion of Israel, had no other effect than that of augmenting the prevalent fear; till David, who for some rea son had gone back perhaps temporarily to his pastoral occupations, chanced, when sent by his father to his brothers in the army, to hear Goliath's taunts; and, being informed that much wealth and the king's daughter had been offered to the Israelite that should vanquish the boaster, he armed himself with a few chosen pebbles and a sling, and at the first aim brought Goliath to the ground, and then with his own sword severed the Philistine's head from his body. His death occasioned the flight of the army of the uncircumcised, and proved the deliverance of the Hebrews (1 Sam. xvii.).

The victory fixed all eyes on the young hero, and gained him all hearts. In the national rejoicings which celebrated his achievements, his deeds were extolled throughout the land, and set far above even those of his sovereign.

'Saul hath slain his thousands,' sang one chorus of women, with tabrets and dancing; but

David, his ten thousands,' answered another jubilant band. Again the evil spirit entered the king's bosom. These praises of his rival he could not endure; the less because, in the ardour of his joy, he had, in reward for David's prowess, given him a high rank in his army. His jealousy and apprehension drove him perhaps to feign madness. Certainly, in a fit of passion, he sought to smite David to the wall with a javelin, while the latter strove to tranquillise his lord's mind with the music of his lyre. Failing to compass his death, Saul put David away from court, by appointing him captain over a thousand,' apparently in the hope, that some occasion would be afforded for effecting his ruin. On the

contrary, David's prudent course increased the favour in which he stood with his fellowcountrymen. Thus foiled, Saul took other measures. David had received neither the riches nor the wife offered to the person who should vanquish Goliath. The king had probably evaded the fulfilment of his word, in his fear to make his rival too powerful. He now, however, fancied that he could turn the matter to his own account. David, he said, should have Michal his daughter, provided that, instead of the dowry which his poverty prevented him from paying, the youth laid before the king a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. This, he felt sure, was a service in which David could not fail to perish. The accomplishment of it, and the espousal of his promised bride, only made the king more jealous, more afraid, and more hostile; so that he gave unreserved utterance, amidst his courtiers, to a wish that some one would take David's life (xviii.). David, however, had one protector. Jonathan, Saul's own son, had conceived a warm friendship for the high-spirited deliverer of Israel; and, interposing his good offices, he procured a promise of David's safety, under the guarantee of an oath. David, accordingly, again stood in Saul's presence. A second war with the Philistines issued in new triumphs, and occasioned to David new perils; for, in his jealous rage, the king again sought to transfix him with a javelin. Failing in his attempt, Saul employed assassins, whose purpose was defeated by Michal at her own peril. David, as was natural, fled to the prophet Samuel, at Ramah. This was the last place where Saul would have had him to be. Accordingly, the king sent messengers to bring him back; but they were seized with an enthusiasm for the young man, kindred with that to which Samuel and his company of prophets gave expression, as Saul's emissaries approached. Three embassies were thus sent in vain. On this, Saul himself went; but with no better result. He also, mastered by a superior power, was found 'among the prophets' (xix.) David, however, knowing that any feeling Saul might have in his favour was only superficial and transitory, again sought a resource in the favourable dispositions of Jonathan; who, undertaking to ascertain the real intentions of the king, found and reported them to his friend to be very adverse. David, thus finding it expedient to flee, took an affectionate farewell of Jonathan, and went to Nob, which lay in the tribe of Benjamin, north of Jerusalem. Hither he seems to have gone with a view of getting possession of Goliath's sword, which was laid up as a sacred trophy in the care of Ahimelech the priest. In order to effect his purpose, David made false representations to Ahimelech, apparently intending to make some stay at Nob; but the unexpected presence of Doeg, Saul's chief herdsman, who

doubtless knew what was David's real posi tion with their common master, compelled him to take to flight. There being no safety for him in Saul's dominions, he threw himself on the generosity of the Philistines, and went in a south-westerly direction to Gath, whose king, Achish, received him with misgivings and suspicion; which induced David to put on the appearance of insanity. The guise seems to have been seen through. David again fled, and, fixing his head quarters in the cave of Adullam, became a centre of union for lawless freebooters, to the number of four hundred. In this character, having placed his parents in safety under the care of the king of Moab, and given refuge to the sole priest whom Saul had left alive of the college at Nob, for he slew the rest in revenge for the temporary shelter he learned from Doeg had been there afforded to his rival, David, now enabled by means of Abiathar to consult the Lord, assailed and defeated the Philistines at Keilah; but, finding no sufficient protection, took refuge against Saul in the wilderness which stretches along the western shore of the Dead Sea. Hither was he followed by the monarch; whose life, when unexpectedly in David's power, that chieftain generously spared (xx. -xxiv). While thus maintaining his supremacy in these regions, he, after the manner of similar sheikhs, asked a supply of provisions for his troops from Nabal, a wealthy proprietor of the district. Contrary to what was ordinarily judged becoming in such a case, David received a stern refusal; which so enraged him, that he would have slain Nabal but for the entreaties of Abigail, the wife of the latter. With her, however, David was so much taken, that on the sudden death of Nabal shortly after, he made her his wife. About the same time he married also Ahinoam. Michal, however, he had lost; for her father married her to another.

David

Saul could not subdue David. could not trust Saul.. David, therefore, thought it best to evacuate Saul's dominions. He returned to Achish, at Gath; who, at his request, gave him the town of Ziklag; which place David made a point whence to assault many of the old inhabitants of the land; while he gave Achish to understand, that his freebooting excursions were directed against his own countrymen (xxvii.). While here, the Philistines arose against Saul, and Achish took David in his army; who, however, was compelled, through the distrust of the Philistine lords, to retire. Returning home to Ziklag, he found it in flames. The Amalekites had taken and sacked the town, carrying away its inhabitants as captives, among whom were David's wives. Encouraged by his priestly adviser, David pursued, and, defeating his foes, rescued all that they had carried off, gaining in addition very large booty, which he judiciously distributed among