the language of the latter was not known to the biblical
writer" and that the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife was drawn in
part from the old Egyptian tale of The Two Brothers. Finally, after a
multitude of other concessions, Prof. Sayce allowed that the book of
Jonah, so far from being the work of the prophet himself, can not have
been written until the Assyrian Empire was a thing of the past; that the
book of Daniel contains serious mistakes; that the so-called historical
chapters of that book so conflict with the monuments that the author
can not have been a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus; that
"the story of Belshazzar's fall is not historical"; that the Belshazzar
referred to in it as king, and as the son of Nehuchadnezzar, was not the
son of Nebuchadnezzar, and was never king; that "King Darius the Mede,"
who plays so great a part in the story, never existed; that the book
associates persons and events really many years apart, and that it must
have been written at a period far later than the time assigned in it for
its own origin.

As to the book of Ezra, he tells us that we are confronted by a
chronological inconsistency which no amount of ingenuity can explain
away. He also acknowledges that the book of Esther "contains many
exaggerations and improbabilities, and is simply founded upon one of
those same historical tales of which the Persian chronicles seem to have
been full." Great was the dissatisfaction of the traditionalists with
their expected champion; well might they repeat the words of Balak to
Balaam, "I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast
altogether blessed them."(495)

(495) For Prof. Brown's discussion, see his Assyriology, its Use and
Abuse in Old Testament Study, New York, 1885, passim. For Prof. Sayce's
views, see The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, third edition,
London, 1894, and especially his own curious anticipation, in the first
lines of the preface, that he must fail to satisfy either side. For the
declaration that the "higher critic" with all his offences is no worse
than the orthodox "apologist," see p. 21. For the important admission
that the same criterion must be applied in researches into our own
sacred books as into others, and even into the mediaeval chronicles, see
p. 26. For justification of critical scepticism regarding the history
given in the book of Daniel, see pp. 27, 28, also chap. ix. For very
full and explicit statements, with p