A

COMMENTARY

ON THE

BOOK OF DANIEL.

BY

MOSES STUART,

LATELY PROF. OF SACRED LITERATURE IN THE THEOL. SEMINARY

AT ANDOVER.

BOSTON:

PUBLISHED BY CROCKER & BREWSTER.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1850, by

CROCKER & BREWSTER,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

ANDOVER: JOHN D. FLAGG

STEREOTYPER AND PRINTER.

PREFACE.

WHILE engaged in writing my Commentary on the Apocalypse, I found myself so often remitted to the book of Daniel, for the sake of illustration, that I of necessity was obliged to study that book with more than ordinary care and diligence. It was natural for me, in the course of an often repeated study of the book, to contract a fondness for it, or at least to take a deep interest in it. When I had completed my apocalyptic labors, and acquitted myself of some engagements which followed them, I began the study of Daniel anew, and with a view to the writing of a Commentary on it. The labor was severe; for very much has been written upon the book, a considerable portion of which has much more of chaff than of wheat in it. Just as I had completed the exegetical part of my work, a typhoid fever took strong hold upon me, and brought me near to the grave. For two years and six months it was utterly beyond my power to write another paragraph. Toward the close of January last, I began slowly to mend, and after a while I ventured to resume my labor. But for several weeks subsequent to this, I could not venture beyond the effort of studying an hour in a day. The opening Spring brought some further relief; and thus I have been able to complete my original design.

In this personal history the public, I am aware, can take but little interest. But it has so often been published, in one way and

another, that I was about to print a Commentary on the book in question, that I have deemed it not inapposite to state the ground of my delay.

forth such a

How can I

As to the book of Daniel itself, I believe that no other of the scriptural books, the Apocalypse excepted, has called variety of discrepant opinions and interpretations. agree with all of them? And yet the great mass of readers are ready to say, each one for himself, that I ought to agree with him. But why? my friend. You take the liberty to differ from others; and why should you refuse the same liberty to me? Besides, I have to ask: On what grounds have you based your opinion? Have you studied the book in its original languages; sought for light on every side, from history, and from antiquities; and above all, have you thoroughly and simply applied to it, irrespective of any favorite and preconceived notions about it, the established principles of historico-grammatical exegesis? And do you even know, with any certainty, what those principles are? If not, how much is your opinion worth, even in your own eyes, when you look candidly at such a difficult matter as the interpretation of the book before us ?

If here and there a self-complacent critic of my Commentary on the Apocalypse, had asked himself such questions, before he sat down to write his diatribe, the public would have been spared a deal of a priori interpretation and spider-web theories. Some had written their book, on the same work of John, and mine disagreed with it. Hinc illae lacrymae. Some had read that profound work of Bishop Newton on the Prophecies; and because I did not agree with him, I must be in the wrong. The most confident of my condemning judges were, of course, those who could not read a word of the original, and would not be able to form any idea what one means, who talks about historico-grammatical interpretation. I have no defence to make against any such assailants.

What happened then, may and probably will happen now. I have not come to the conclusion, that Daniel has said, or knew, any

thing about the Pope and his Cardinals. This will be enough to pass sentence of condemnation. Do manus. I can have no dispute with criticism like this. Of all the books in the Bible, except perhaps the Apocalypse, Daniel has been least understood, and most perverted and abused. I will bide my time, and wait with patience to see, whether this will be conceded and myself justified in the attempt to vindicate its true meaning.

For the rest, I have only a few things to say, as to the design and manner of the Commentary. I have kept in my eye, every where, the wants of a beginner in the study of Hebrew, and specially of the Chaldee. For the Chaldee part, the book is, as I trust, a complete Chrestomathy, i. e. it gives the solution of every difficulty respecting the forms and the syntax of words. The reader may depend on its being a sufficient introduction to the grammatical study of the Chaldee language. The references everywhere made in copious abundance to Prof. Hackett's translation of Winer's Chaldee Grammar, will familiarize him, if he is faithful in consulting that Grammar, with all the forms and peculiarities of the Chaldee dialect. All the Chaldee words are of course comprised in Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon.

The few in our country, who are acquainted with the Chaldee, will take no offence at a brief space being occupied with the solution of grammatical questions. They can pass on and leave these, without any hinderance. If they once have studied the language, and let slip the memory of grammatical minutiae, they will thank me for rendering it quite easy for them to recal what they had lost.

Most heartily do I commend it to all Hebrew students, to go on and study the Chaldee. If they are well grounded in Hebrew, four or five weeks spent faithfully on the Chaldee, will enable them to read this with as much facility as they do the Hebrew. The study of the Chaldee in Daniel, will be sufficient to enable them to read the Chaldee in Ezra with entire ease; and from him they may go into the Chaldee Targums without any difficulty. The conquest