Light from Egyptian Papyri. By C. H. H. Wright D.D.
(Williams and Norgate. 3s. ,net.)—Dr. Wright again takes up the thesis that the Book of Daniel helou,es to the first half of the sixth century B.C., and not to the first half of the second.. The argument cannot be continued with any profit. Dr. Wright makes it clear in chap. 52, " Critics and their Criticisms," that in his view the use of the Daniel prophecies by Christ settles the issue against the critics. In this volume he seeks to make two points,—first, that the Aramaic papyri lately discovered dispose of the linguistic argument ; second, that the Book of Daniel omits mention of so many important events of the Maccabean period that it cannot be referred to it. This negative argument is surely of but little weight ; the positive difficulty of Belshazzar being spoken of as a son of Nebuohadrezzar outweighs it twenty times. But the greatest argument against the book is the character of the so-called prophecies.
Previous page
