91. No reasonable doubt can be left on the mind, that the LXX. translators have here the
Messiah in view.
92. Ps. lxxii.
93. Ps. cx.
94. Ps. lxxii.
95. Is. ix. 6.
96. The criticism of Mr. Drummond on these three passages (Jewish Messiah, pp. 290,
291) cannot be supported on critical grounds.
97. Three, if not four, different renderings of the Targum on Is. ix. 6 are possible. But the
minimum conveyed to my mind implies the premundane existence, the eternal
continuance, and the superhuman dignity of the Messiah. (See also the Targum on Micah
v. 2.)
98. This is the view of Grimm , and more fully carried out by Oehler. The argument of
Hengstenberg, that the mention of such a Messiah was restrained from fe ar of the
heathen, does not deserve serious refutation.
99. These exceptions are, according to Friedlieb (Die Sibyllin. Weissag.) vv. 1 -45, vv.
47-96 (dating from 40 -31 before Christ), and vv. 818-828. On the subject generally, see
our previous remarks in Book 1.
100. vv. 652-807.
101. vv. 285, 286.
102. v. 652.
103. Mr. Drummond defends (at pp. d 274, 275) Holtxmann's view, that the expression
applies to Simon the Maccabee, although on p. 291 he argues on the opposite supposition
that the text refers to the Messiah. It is difficult to understand, how on reading the whole
passage the hypothesis of Holtzmann could be entertained. While referring to the 3rd
Book of the Sib. Or., another point of considerable interest deserves notice. According t o
the theory which places the authorship of Daniel in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes - or
say about 165 b.c. - the 'fourth kingdom' of Daniel must be the Grecian. But, on the other
hand, such certainly was not the view entertained by Apocalypts of the year 165, since
the 3d Book of the Sib. Or., which dates from precisely that period, not only takes notice
of the rising power of Rome, but anticipates the destruction of the Grecian Empire by
Rome, which in turn is to be vanquished by Israel (vv. 175-195; 520-544; 638-807). This
most important fact would require to be accounted for by the opponents of the
authenticity of Daniel.
104. vv. 652-807.
105. I have purposely omitted all references to controverted passages. But see Langen, D.
Judenth. in Palest. pp. 401 &c.
Even more distinct are the statements in the so-called 'Book of Enoch.' Critics are
substantially agreed, that the oldest part of it106 dates from between 150 and 130 b.c.107
The part next in date is full of Messianic allusions; but, as a certain class of modern
writers has ascribed to it a post-Christian date, and, however ungrounded,108 to Christian
authorship, it may be better not to refer to it in the present argument, the more so as we
have other testimony from the time of Herod. Not to speak, therefore, of such peculiar
designations of the Messiah as 'the Woman's Son,'109 'the Son of Man,'110 'the Elect,' and
'the Just One,' we mark that the Messiah is expressly designed in the oldest portion as 'the
Son of God' ('I and My Son').111 That this implies, not, indeed, essential Sonship, but
infinite superiority over all other servants of God, and rule over them, appears from the