PREFACE. THE Daniel controversy has hitherto been regarded as the special the special preserve of the philologist. Who but he is qualified to decide to what epoch any portion of the Hebrew Scriptures should be assigned? The claim, however, is based upon a fallacy. The whole question turns upon a simple issue of fact-"Was the book in existence before the days of Antiochus?" If this be decided in the affirmative, its prophetic character is unquestionable; and this, again, practically involves the admission that it is the work of the Daniel of the Exile. 117529 And an issue of this kind demands an inquiry essentially judicial. An experienced judge with an intelligent jury, accustomed to sift and weigh conflicting testimony, would here be a fitter tribunal than any board of specialists, however eminent. The philologist can supply but a part, and that by no means the most important part, of the necessary evidence. And if a single well ascertained fact be inconsistent with the theory he advocates, the fact must prevail. But this the specialist is proverbially slow to recognise. Whatever the subject-matter of the inquiry, he is apt to exaggerate the importance of his own testimony, and to betray impatience when evidence of another kind is allowed its legitimate weight. Nowhere, moreover, is this tendency more marked than among the critics. Here, then, is the author's apology for |